부당이득금
1. The Defendant’s KRW 952,287 as well as 5% per annum from March 28, 2019 to May 17, 2019 to the Plaintiff.
1. Facts of recognition;
A. The Plaintiff is a project implementer of the C Housing Redevelopment Improvement Project (hereinafter “instant Improvement Project”) that performs redevelopment of the B members of Seongbuk-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government under the Act on the Maintenance and Improvement of Urban Areas and Dwelling Conditions for Residents.
B. On November 7, 2016, the Plaintiff obtained approval of the management and disposal plan for the instant improvement project from the Seongbuk-gu mayor, and the Sungnam-si Mayor announced it (D) around that time.
C. The Defendant was the owner of the real estate listed in the separate sheet in the instant improvement project zone (hereinafter “instant real estate”).
On February 8, 2018, the Plaintiff applied for adjudication of expropriation to the Central Land Expropriation Committee, and on March 28, 2018, the Central Land Expropriation Committee determined the commencement date of expropriation to be March 28, 2018.
E. On March 22, 2018, the Plaintiff deposited compensation for losses for the instant real estate with the Defendant as a depositee. On April 26, 2018, the Plaintiff completed the registration of ownership transfer based on the expropriation on March 28, 2018.
F. The Plaintiff used and benefited from the instant real estate by July 12, 2018.
G. Monthly rent of the instant real estate is KRW 274,800.
[Ground of Recognition] A without dispute, Gap evidence 1 to 12 (including each number), Eul evidence 2, the appraiser's appraisal result, the purport of the whole pleadings
2. According to the above facts finding as to the cause of the claim, the Plaintiff acquired the ownership of the instant real estate on March 28, 2018, which was the starting date of expropriation, and the Defendant lost its ownership on the same day, even though it lost its ownership.
7. Since it is recognized that the real estate of this case was continuously used and profited until December, 700, the defendant is obligated to return unjust enrichment to the plaintiff.
On the other hand, the amount of profit from the possession and use of real estate shall be the amount equivalent to the rent in ordinary cases, and the monthly rent of the real estate in this case is 274,800 as seen earlier.
Therefore, the defendant, on March 2018, is against the plaintiff.