logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 의정부지방법원 2017.11.10 2017나203030
부당이득금
Text

1. The part of the judgment of the court of first instance against the defendant shall be revoked.

2. The plaintiffs' claims against the above revocation portion are all satisfied.

Reasons

1. Basic facts

A. On August 10, 1982, E completed the registration of ownership transfer with respect to the land of 782m2m2 (hereinafter “instant land before the instant partition”).

B. On January 23, 1986, the land before the instant partition was divided into 669 square meters and 113 square meters of the Sinyang-dong-gu Seoul Metropolitan City D-dong-dong-dong-dong-si (hereinafter “instant land”). At least around that time, it was used as a local highway G-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-si

C. Meanwhile, on October 29, 2015, the Plaintiffs completed the registration of ownership transfer for reasons of public sale on October 26, 2015 with respect to shares of 1/3 of the instant land.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1, 4, 5, Eul evidence Nos. 13 and 15, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. In a case where a local government takes possession of a private land for which unjust enrichment has occurred and the exclusive use of and benefit from such land is restricted by providing them to the general public, barring special circumstances, such as where the owner renounces his/her exclusive use of and benefit from such land, the State or the local government shall obtain the benefit from occupying and using the land, and the landowner shall suffer the same loss.

As seen earlier, the Defendant occupies each of the instant lands, and each of the instant lands is offered to the general public for traffic up to now. As such, the Defendant is obligated to return unjust enrichment due to the possession and use of each of the instant lands to the Plaintiffs who own 1/3 shares of each of the instant lands, barring any special circumstance.

3. Judgment on the defendant's assertion

A. The Defendant asserts to the effect that, around 1984, the ownership of the instant land was acquired through the compensation procedure, when incorporated into a road through the local highway confirmation and packing construction.

arrow