2. The nature of obligation to return unjust enrichment equivalent to the rent or rent in a case where the owner on the same site has constructed another building and uses the site without any legal cause.

2. In a case where the owners of each floor in the third floor building are different, they may be deemed to jointly possess and use the site in which the building is located. The obligation to return unjust enrichment in a case where several persons jointly use another’s property without any legal cause is an indivisible obligation, barring any special circumstance, and thus, the Plaintiff may not refuse a claim for return of unjust enrichment in the rent-making party’s site only to the owners of the first floor building.

2. The plaintiff's remaining claims against the defendants are dismissed.

3. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the defendants.

4. Paragraph 1 can be provisionally executed.

Costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the defendants, and a declaration of provisional execution

Therefore, the defendants, who did not assert that they had the right to possess and use the site of this case, shall obtain without any legal grounds during the period of their use, the profit equivalent to the rent of the site and thereby shall have suffered the loss of the same amount as the plaintiff. Therefore, the plaintiff shall be obliged to return the profit to the plaintiff.

However, since Defendant 1, 2, and 4's legal representative's claim for the use fee or rent of the site of this case occurred every month and the due date occurs at the same time, it is proved that the period of prescription expires after the lapse of 3 years from December 24, 197, the following day after the Plaintiff acquired ownership pursuant to Article 163 subparagraph 1 of the Civil Act, and therefore, it is obvious that the cause of the claim of this case is a claim for return of unjust enrichment. Thus, the above defendants' defense of the statute of limitations is no longer necessary to look at it.

2. Therefore, according to the results of the appraisal by the appraiser and appraiser, among the land in this case, the part of the land in this case, which the defendants owned and used each building listed in the separate sheet No. 1 as stated in the separate sheet No. 2. Since there is no counter-proof otherwise, it is calculated from December 23, 1977 that the defendants acquired the land in this case from December 23, 1984 to January 23, 1984, as the plaintiff seeks, as the plaintiff seeks, as to the scope of unjust enrichment to be returned by the defendants, the amount equivalent to 8,148,294 won and 1,210,409 won and 409 won which are possessed by the defendant No. 3 as stated in the separate sheet No. 3, the part which the defendants possessed by the defendant No. 1,697,862 as stated in the separate sheet No. 3, and the part which the defendant No. 2 possessed by the defendant No. 3 shall be deemed as losses to the plaintiff. 5, 961 and 962.

Defendant 3 asserts that the building on each of the buildings listed in the separate sheet No. 1 on the site of this case is constructed, and the owners are different, it is reasonable for the owners of 1,2, and 3 to pay the site rent in installments. Therefore, Defendant 3’s claim that the Plaintiff’s return of unjust enrichment for the rent of the Plaintiff’s principal is also obligated to pay in installments the return of unjust enrichment for the rent of the Plaintiff. Thus, even if the owners of each of the above buildings and the above buildings and the third and third and upper buildings are different, such as the Defendant’s head of the household household, they can be viewed as jointly occupying and using the site on which each of the above buildings are located, and the obligation to return unjust enrichment for the use of another’s property without any legal cause is an indivisible obligation, barring any special circumstance. Thus, Defendant 3’s claim cannot be denied, regardless of the fact that the above Defendant may claim for reimbursement of money equivalent to the portion to be borne by the owners of 2 and 3 floors.

3. Accordingly, Defendant 1 is obligated to pay to the Plaintiff the unjust enrichment of the above recognition amounting to KRW 9,697,862, Defendant 2, Defendant 3's unjust enrichment amounting to KRW 8,148,294, Defendant 3's unjust enrichment amounting to KRW 1,210,409, Defendant 4's unjust enrichment amounting to the above recognition amounting to KRW 5,619,962, and damages for delay in civil law at the rate of 5% per annum from April 8, 1984 to the full payment date, as sought by the Plaintiff, after the occurrence of the above unjust enrichment amounting to KRW 5,619,962, and each of the above amounts, as requested by the Plaintiff. Accordingly, the Plaintiff's claim of this case is accepted within the extent of the above recognition, and the remainder is without merit, and it is so decided as per Disposition with a declaration of provisional execution.

Judges Lee Jae-sik (Presiding Judge)