1. The Plaintiff:
(a) Defendant A is entitled to KRW 4,605,016 within the scope of property inherited from the network D;
B. Defendant B and C are deceased.
1. Basic facts
A. The Plaintiff is a corporation established under the Act on the Efficient Disposal of Non-Performing Assets, etc. of Financial Companies and the Establishment of Korea Asset Management Corporation, and was entrusted by the Republic of Korea with the business of the management and disposal of Seongbuk-gu Seoul E-gi (hereinafter “instant land”) owned by the Republic of Korea in accordance with the aforementioned Act and
B. From August 11, 2003 to December 31, 2010, Nonparty D resided in an unauthorized building constructed on the ground of 104 square meters among the instant land (hereinafter “instant building”) and occupied and used the instant land as the site for the instant building.
C. On March 28, 2011, D died, and the denying Defendant A, Defendant B, and C inherited D’s property with their respective inheritance shares in 3/7, 2/7, 2/7, and 2/7. On October 2, 2013, the Defendants reported the qualified acceptance to the Seoul Family Court, and received a ruling from the said court to accept the qualified acceptance report on December 24, 2013.
The details of statutes concerning the rate of usage fees and assessment methods under the Enforcement Decree of the State Property Act shall be as shown in attached Form 1.
[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1, Gap evidence 2-1 to 4, Gap evidence 3, 4, Eul evidence 5-1 and Eul evidence 5-2, and the purport of the whole pleadings
2. The assertion and judgment
A. According to the above facts of determination as to the cause of the claim, barring any special circumstance, the Defendants are obligated to return to the Plaintiff the amount equivalent to the rent due to the Plaintiff’s possession and use of the instant land from August 11, 2003 to December 31, 2010 within the scope of inheritance shares, barring any special circumstance, the amount of profit due to the possession and use of the instant land shall be the rent of the relevant real estate. In ordinary cases, the amount of profit due to the Plaintiff’s possession and use of the said real estate shall be the amount equivalent to the rent of the relevant real estate. However, in this case where the Defendants did not challenge the calculation method of unjust enrichment claimed by the Plaintiff, the amount calculated as shown in
B. The Defendants’.