beta
Text
1. The defendant,
A. The Plaintiff 2,702,010 won and the interest rate of 15% per annum from August 10, 2017 to the date of complete payment.
Reasons
1. Basic facts
A. On June 30, 1965, Plaintiff A completed the registration of ownership transfer with respect to the land listed in the separate sheet No. 1, and Plaintiff B completed the registration of ownership transfer with respect to the land listed in the separate sheet No. 2 through No. 4 on December 29, 1964, including each land listed in the separate sheet No. 2 through No. 4 on December 29, 1964 (hereinafter referred to as “each land of this case”; and in case of the separate parcels of land, the registration of ownership transfer with respect to each
B. In October 7, 1974, the land category of the instant land No. 2 was changed from December 31, 1973 to each road from orchard on March 17, 1989.
From the time of the change of the above land category, the Defendant occupied and managed each of the instant land by providing it for the general public for traffic and passage.
[Ground of Recognition] Unsatisfy, each entry and video of Gap evidence 1 to 3 (including each number), the result of the commission of appraisal to appraiser C by this court, the purport of the whole pleadings
2. Return of unjust enrichment:
A. According to the above facts of recognition as to the cause of the claim, the defendant provided each of the lands of this case as a passage to the general public and obtained profits from the use of each of the lands of this case by occupying and using them, and thereby suffered damages equivalent to the same amount from the plaintiffs. Thus, the defendant is obligated to return the amount equivalent to the rent of each of the lands of this case to the plaintiffs, who are the owners of each of the lands
B. The Defendant asserts that the Defendant did not raise any objection to the Defendant, even though he was aware that each of the instant lands was used as a road site, as to the Defendant’s assertion on the sole exclusive use right waiver of the judgment on the Defendant’s assertion, and that the Plaintiffs did not have any damage by waiver of the exclusive use right and exclusive use right on the instant lands No. 1 and 2
Domination, any of the private land is naturally occurring from the beginning.