logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 수원지방법원 안양지원 2017.04.26 2016가단109633
부당이득금
Text

1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

Reasons

1. Each land listed in the separate sheet of recognition (hereinafter “each land of this case”) was owned by B, and the Plaintiff completed the registration of ownership transfer on July 5, 2001 due to voluntary auction bid.

In 1985, the daily price of the land, including the land of the Gu C, was included in the DNA access road expansion project.

Each land of this case was classified into a project zone and divided as follows on December 16, 1985, and the land category was changed to a road on the same day.

▣ C 전 374㎡ 일부가 E 전 257㎡로 분할(별지 목록 1항 토지) ▣ F 전 426㎡ 일부가 G 전 195㎡로 분할(별지 목록 2항 토지) ▣ H 답 373㎡ 일부가 I 답 134㎡로 분할(별지 목록 3항 토지) 이 사건 각 토지는 그 무렵부터 현재까지 도로로 사용되고 있다.

[Ground of recognition] Unsatisfy, Gap 1-3 evidence, Eul 1 evidence, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. According to the above facts of determination as to the cause of the claim, the defendant occupies and uses each of the lands of this case as a road site. Thus, the defendant is obligated to return unjust enrichment equivalent to the rent to the plaintiff who is the owner, unless there are special circumstances.

3. Judgment on the defense of the prescription period for possession

A. The defendant's defense was completed by occupying each of the lands of this case in a peacefully and openly performing from 1985 to 20 years with his intention to own.

Since the defendant has the right to occupy the land, he does not support the obligation to return unjust enrichment.

B. Determination 1) The Defendant’s presumption of the Defendant’s autonomous possession, etc. began to occupy each of the instant lands on the road in 1985 for the purpose of offering them to the general public for their passage, and such possession is presumed to have been peaceful and openly held as owner’s intent pursuant to Article 197 of the Civil Act. 2) As to the reversal of the presumption of the autonomous possession, the Plaintiff: (a) without completing the compensation procedure for each of the instant lands, and thus, (b) the presumption of the autonomous possession was reversed.

arrow