부당이득금반환
1. The instant lawsuit was concluded by a judgment on December 15, 2016.
2. The costs of the lawsuit after the request for an additional trial are made.
Facts below basic facts are significant or clearly recorded in this Court.
The plaintiff in the first instance trial of this case is a share holder who has acquired part of the shares in each land listed in the attached Table 1 list.
The Plaintiff filed the instant lawsuit seeking return of unjust enrichment on the ground that “the Defendant and the Co-Defendant C Co-Defendant C Co-Defendant C Co-Defendant Co-Defendant Co-Defendant Co-Defendant Co-Defendant Co-Defendant Co-Defendant Co-Defendant Co-Defendant Co-Defendant Co-Defendant Co-Defendant Co-Defendant Co-Defendant Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “C”) exclusively occupied the land listed in the attached Table 1 through 3 (hereinafter “each of the instant hot spring co-owned land”) and the land listed in the same list (hereinafter “the water tank”) without a legitimate title, and operated a hot spring business without a legitimate title, during the period of possession, the Plaintiff filed the instant lawsuit seeking return of unjust enrichment on the ground that the amount equivalent to the Plaintiff’s share should be returned
On September 18, 2014, the first instance court dismissed the claim against Defendant D and C on the ground that it cannot be deemed that Defendant B possessed and used the land by recognizing only a part of the period of possession of each of the instant hot spring hole land and each of the water tank land, and accepting the remainder of the claim corresponding to the period of possession. As to Defendant B, Defendant B cannot be deemed to possess and use the said land by owning the facilities on each of the instant hot spring hole land and each of the water tank.
As to the validity of the instant appeal and the final appeal lawsuit, the Plaintiff appealed against the Defendants and C, respectively, on the part against which Defendant D lost.
(Seoul High Court 2014Na50045). The plaintiff modified the claim and the cause of the claim, such as the description of the claim in the process of the appellate trial, and withdrawn the lawsuit against C.
This Court, on December 15, 2016, changed the part against Defendant D in the judgment of the first instance, including a claim for addition or reduction during the appellate trial, part of the claim.