손해배상(기)
1. Of the judgment of the court of first instance, the part against the defendant exceeding the following amount ordered to be paid shall be revoked.
1. The reasoning for this part of the judgment of the court is the same as the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance, and thus, it is acceptable in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.
2. The Plaintiff’s assertion: ① As the Plaintiff illegally occupied and used the first and second floors of the instant building from November 12, 2014, until March 31, 2016, the delivery execution of the instant building was completed, the Defendant is obligated to return KRW 17,236,756, which is an unjust enrichment equivalent to the rent during the said period to the Plaintiff; ② from January 10, 2013 to March 31, 2016, the Plaintiff arbitrarily occupied the instant building by illegally occupying the factory, workplace, warehouse, etc. and installed the factory, warehouse, etc. and arbitrarily installed the construction waste disposal expenses incurred by the Plaintiff for removal, restoration, etc. < Amended by Act No. 911, Jan. 10, 2013; Act No. 3015, Jan. 1, 501,00; Act No. 3000, Mar. 31, 2016>
Therefore, the Defendant should pay to the Plaintiff the aforementioned sum of KRW 30,915,786 (i.e., unjust enrichment of KRW 17,236,756, the construction waste disposal cost of KRW 9,911,00, the key repair cost of KRW 1,501,00, the water supply and drainage cost of KRW 2,267,030, the electricity cost of KRW 2,267,030)
3. Determination
A. (1) According to the above facts, the Defendant: (a) occupied and used the first and second floors of the instant building from May 21, 2010 to March 31, 2016; and (b) the Plaintiff acquired ownership on November 12, 2014; and (c) barring any special circumstance, the Defendant is obligated to return unjust enrichment equivalent to the rent from November 12, 2014, the Plaintiff acquired the ownership of the instant building to March 31, 2016, from November 31, 2016, from which the delivery execution of the instant building was completed.
(2) Since the extinctive prescription of the claim for construction price as to the instant building was completed on December 31, 2015, the Defendant, as the lien holder, has the right to receive negligence until that time.