건물철거 및 토지인도
1. Revocation of the first instance judgment.
2. The defendant, upon the reduction of the claim at the trial court, shall be the plaintiff.
(a) 697,160 won;
1. Basic facts
A. On March 30, 2011, the registration of ownership transfer was completed due to a compulsory auction on March 24, 2011 in the name of the Plaintiff with respect to the land of 1,102 square meters (hereinafter “instant land”).
B. Of the attached appraisal maps, some of the instant land, there were buildings on the ground connected in sequence 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, and 6 (hereinafter “instant building”), and on October 25, 2013, the registration of ownership transfer was completed on October 23, 2013 under the name of the Defendant for the said building due to a compulsory sale by official auction as of October 23, 2013.
[Ground of recognition] Evidence Nos. 1-1 and 2-2, the purport of the whole pleadings
2. Determination
A. According to the above facts, the defendant owned the building of this case on the land listed in Paragraph (1) of the disposition of the plaintiff owned by the plaintiff (hereinafter "land in dispute of this case"), thereby gaining profits equivalent to the rent of the land by occupying and using the land in dispute of this case. Accordingly, the defendant is obligated to return unjust enrichment equivalent to the rent of the land to the plaintiff.
Furthermore, in full view of the purport of the entire pleadings as a result of a request for appraisal of rent against appraiser F by the court of the lower judgment with respect to unjust enrichment equivalent to the rent that the Defendant should return to the Plaintiff, the rent for the land in dispute in this case is KRW 697,160 from October 23, 2013 to March 22, 2017, and the fact that the rent for the land in dispute in this case is KRW 18,730 from March 23, 2017, and thereafter is ratified as the same amount.
Therefore, the Defendant is obligated to pay the Plaintiff the rent of KRW 697,160 and the monthly rent of KRW 18,730 from March 23, 2017 to the time when the land in the dispute in this case is transferred as unjust enrichment.
B. As to this, the Defendant asserted to the purport that the Defendant cannot respond to the Plaintiff’s claim since the Defendant had legal superficies on the instant dispute’s land.
(b).