beta
(영문) 수원지방법원 2017.04.06 2016가단506065

부당이득금

Text

1. The defendant's KRW 217,890 for each of the plaintiffs and each of them shall be 5% per annum from August 25, 2016 to April 6, 2017.

Reasons

1. Basic facts

A. On December 8, 2015, the Plaintiffs received a successful bid in the procedure for compulsory auction and completed the registration of ownership transfer in their future with respect to each 1/2 shares on December 11, 2015.

B. Attached List

1. The land was partitioned from the land in the form of a tension of 50m in length and underside 0.8m, which was built near the Creshz center, around February 1995, into D in the wife population at the Sorez center.

Attached Form

List Descriptions

2. The land was partitioned from the land in the form of a long angle of 40m in length and underside 0.8m in length, and was partitioned from the land in the F of the wife population in the Gansi-si, which is the site of the E apartment constructed in the vicinity around June 1995.

Since that time, each land listed in the separate sheet as above has been provided as a passage for the residents having access to the above sports center and apartment, and accordingly, the defendant has occupied and managed it as a road.

[Reasons for Recognition] The statements in Gap's 1 to 8, Eul's 1 to 4 (including each number, if any) and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The occurrence of a claim for return of unjust gains;

A. According to the above facts of determination as to the cause of claim, the defendant who occupies and manages each parcel of land listed in the separate sheet owned by the plaintiffs as a road passed by the residents of the land in the separate sheet owned by the plaintiffs, gains profits from using it as a road, and thereby causes damages equivalent to the same amount to the plaintiffs. Thus, barring any special circumstance, the defendant is obligated to pay unjust enrichment equivalent to the rent for each of the above parcels of land to the plaintiffs.

B. As to the determination of the Defendant’s assertion, each land listed in the separate sheet was owned by the Defendant, which was originally recognized construction company (hereinafter “recognized construction”). However, an recognized construction constructed apartment constructed with the said Crets Center, and provided the said land by dividing it into the said E-House Center and the residents having access to the said apartment without compensation.