부당이득금
1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.
2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.
The following facts are not disputed between the parties, or acknowledged by adding the whole purport of the pleadings to each entry in Gap evidence 1 through 7.
① The Plaintiff is a project implementer of the “C Housing Redevelopment Development and Improvement Project” (hereinafter “instant project”) that performs redevelopment of the size of 233,366 square meters in Seongbuk-gu, Sungnam-gu.
② On July 3, 2018, the Defendant leased and occupied a building located in the instant project district (hereinafter referred to as “instant building”) and removed the building from the said building.
③ On March 8, 2018, the Central Land Tribunal rendered a ruling of expropriation of the instant building as of March 28, 2018, and the Plaintiff completed the registration of ownership transfer on April 26, 2018 on the ground of expropriation on March 28, 2018.
The Plaintiff asserts to the effect that the Defendant continued to possess and use the instant building until July 3, 2018, which was the date of expropriation, after March 28, 2018, the date of expropriation, thereby gaining unjust enrichment equivalent to the rent for the said period. The Plaintiff asserts to the Defendant that he/she paid the Defendant damages for delay equivalent to the rent for KRW 3,444,912, and the amount equivalent to the rent for the said period from March 28, 2018 until April 5, 2018, which is the date of delivery of a copy of the instant complaint.
(1) The Plaintiff initially sought a return of unjust enrichment equivalent to the rent from that time on the ground that the Defendant could not use or benefit from the instant building after the public notice of the management and disposal plan on November 7, 2016. However, the purport of the claim and the cause of claim were modified to seek a return of unjust enrichment equivalent to the rent from that time after the date of expropriation. However, the benefit refers to the substantial benefit in return of unjust enrichment on the ground of benefit without any legal cause. As such, even though the lessee continued to possess the leased building even after the termination of the lease agreement, it did not obtain substantial benefit by failing to use or benefit from the leased building according to its original purpose.