beta
(영문) 수원지방법원 2015.08.27 2014나1413

부당이득금반환

Text

1. Of the judgment of the court of first instance, KRW 9,551,482 against the Plaintiff and its related thereto, from October 15, 2013 to August 27, 2015.

Reasons

1. Basic facts

A. On July 15, 1980, the defendant registered the ownership transfer of the land D and the above ground buildings (house) adjacent to the land of this case on Suwon-si, Suwon-si. The defendant occupied and used the above house since that time.

B. On January 8, 2002, the Korean Occupational Co., Ltd. completed the registration of ownership transfer on the instant land to the Plaintiff, and on January 22, 2009, the Plaintiff transferred the registration of ownership transfer to E with respect to 22/100 of the instant land.

[Reasons for Recognition] Unsatisfy, Gap evidence 1, 3, Eul evidence 7 and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. In light of the following circumstances, it is recognized that some of the houses owned by the defendant was built by the defendant against the land in the dispute of this case, and that the defendant occupied the land in the dispute of this case, considering the fact that the defendant did not dispute over the possession of the land in the dispute of this case, the entries in Gap Nos. 4, 5, and 6 (including the provisional numbers) and the purport of the whole pleadings.

A. In a civil trial, even if it is not bound by the facts established in the judgment on other civil cases, etc., the facts established in the already established civil civil cases are significant evidence unless there are special circumstances (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 94Da47292, Jun. 29, 1995). However, in around 2002, the Plaintiff filed a lawsuit against the Defendant and 15 other than the Defendant for a claim such as transfer of land, etc., the Suwon District Court 2002Ga68344, and the above court accepted the claim against six and nine persons against the Defendant and the nine others, and appealed against the lost part. The appellate court (U.S. District Court 2004Na17600, supra) rendered a judgment dismissing the claim against the Defendant and nine persons, and it is reasonable to deem that the Defendant and nine other parties occupy the land owned by the Plaintiff (see, e.g., the land portion occupied by the non-party 9, etc., the appraisal by the court of the first instance court.).