logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 창원지방법원 2015.02.04 2013나14082
토지사용료
Text

1. The plaintiff's appeal and the plaintiff's claim added in the trial are all dismissed.

2. After filing an appeal.

Reasons

1. Basic facts

A. The fourth apartment house (hereinafter in this case) was newly built on the ground of the real estate listed in the attached list No. 1 (hereinafter in this case) and the registration of preservation of ownership of the above housing was completed on January 29, 2007.

B. As to the site of this case, January 13, 2008

4. On February 20, 2009, two (2) establishment registration was completed on the debtor C, and the plaintiff acquired the ownership of the instant land through a voluntary auction procedure conducted on February 20, 2009.

C. The registration of ownership preservation was completed on January 29, 2007 with respect to the real estate listed in the attached list No. 2 (hereinafter the instant section for exclusive use) and the Defendant acquired the ownership of the instant section for exclusive use through a compulsory auction procedure on November 3, 2011.

(In fact that there is no dispute, entry of Gap evidence 1, purport of whole pleading)

2. Judgment on the Plaintiff’s claim for return of unjust enrichment

A. As to the Plaintiff’s assertion, the fact that the Defendant owned the instant section of exclusive ownership and occupied and used the instant site owned by the Plaintiff is identical to that recognized above, barring special circumstances, the Defendant is obligated to return unjust enrichment equivalent to the rent from the possession and use of the instant site to the Plaintiff, barring special circumstances.

B. The summary of the Defendant’s assertion 1) The Defendant had already established the right to use the site regarding the instant section of exclusive ownership prior to the successful bid. Therefore, it is reasonable to deem that the Defendant acquired the right to use the site together with the instant section of exclusive ownership. Therefore, it cannot be said that the Defendant occupied the instant site without any legal ground and gains profit therefrom. 2) The right to use the site that the Defendant acquired by acquiring the right to use the site of exclusive ownership is a right to the site of the building to which the sectional owner owns the right to use the site of exclusive ownership.

arrow