logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 대전지방법원 2017.05.16 2016가단205707
부당이득금
Text

1. The defendant,

A. Plaintiff C: KRW 883,500, KRW 147,250, and KRW 589,000, respectively, to Plaintiff D and E.

Reasons

1. Facts of recognition;

A. The deceased G completed the registration of ownership transfer by the Daejeon District Court No. 1800, Mar. 4, 193, 193 with respect to F. F. 241 square meters (hereinafter “instant land”).

B. The instant land was partitioned into H land on November 1, 1940, and the land category was changed from “B” to “road,” and was incorporated into “I”, which is a road for the 32 line newly opened on September 29, 1997, and the Defendant occupied and used the instant land as a road management authority around that time.

C. The deceased in 1952 and the deceased in 1981 and the J succeeded to Australia and the property of the Republic of Korea. The plaintiffs, who were the children of the J succeeded to each share of the instant land in 1981, respectively, and the plaintiffs, who were the children of the J, were to acquire 6/16 shares, 1/16 shares, 1/16 shares, 1/16 shares, and 4/16 shares, 4/16 shares, respectively.

On the other hand, K's land adjacent to the land of this case, which is incorporated into "I", was used on November 1, 1940 as a change of land category as a road, and it was used on March 22, 2012, and the registration of ownership transfer was completed in the future of the defendant on the ground of the acquisition of public land consultation.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1 through 6, Gap evidence 9, Eul evidence 1, 2, Eul evidence 4 and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination

A. According to the above facts finding that unjust enrichment occurred, the defendant is obligated to return the land to the plaintiffs for unjust enrichment, barring any special circumstance, since the defendant occupied and used the land of this case without any legal ground to gain profit equivalent to the rent, and thereby suffered the same amount from the plaintiffs who are its owners.

B. Defendant’s assertion 1) The Defendant asserted the waiver of the right to use and benefit from the instant land, and the process of dividing the instant land and the change of land category, and land category.

arrow