부당이득금반환
1. All appeals by the defendant against the plaintiffs are dismissed.
2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Defendant.
purport, purport, and.
1. The court's explanation on this part of the basic facts is identical to the corresponding part of the judgment of the court of first instance, and thus, citing it as it is by the main text of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.
2. Determination as to the cause of action
A. According to the above facts, the ownership of the real estate of this case was originally reverted to D, who is the name of the circumstance, and was succeeded to F in order to the plaintiff A through F, and thereafter the plaintiff A sold the 2/5 share of the real estate of this case to the plaintiff B. The defendant obtained profits equivalent to the profits from the use of the real estate of this case by occupying and using it as a road without any title prior to the acquisition of the real estate of this case, which was owned by the plaintiffs. Accordingly, the plaintiffs suffered losses equivalent to the same amount, and thus, the defendant is obligated to return it as unjust enrichment
B. Furthermore, the amount of unjust enrichment to be returned by the defendant is examined as to the amount of unjust enrichment to be returned by the defendant, and the amount of profit from the possession and use of real estate is the amount equivalent to the rent of the real estate.
In addition, according to Article 748(2) of the Civil Act, “a malicious beneficiary” should be construed as “a person who causes damage to the beneficiary’s interest with interest added thereto, if any.”
However, in full view of the above evidence and the purport of the whole pleadings, the defendant without title incorporated the real estate of this case into the road and occupied it without permission, and the defendant is a malicious beneficiary.
Therefore, the defendant is obligated to return to the plaintiffs the amount equivalent to the plaintiffs' share of the amount equivalent to the rent of the real estate of this case and the legal interest from the date of occurrence of unjust enrichment.
Therefore, the Defendant’s unjust enrichment amounting to KRW 39,879,173 [= KRW 8,056,500 in 2010 + KRW 8,640,750 in 2012, 8,640,750 in 2013 from January 1, 2014 to May 29, 2014 (= KRW 3,803,374 in 2014 + KRW 9,317,250 in 200 x 149/365 in 205)]