부당이득반환등 청구의 소
1. The defendant shall be the plaintiff.
(a) KRW 947,640 as well as 5% per annum from October 8, 2015 to August 5, 2016;
1. The following facts may be found either in dispute between the parties or in full view of the purport of the entire pleadings in each entry in Gap evidence Nos. 1 to 6, Eul evidence No. 1, 3 and 4:
The land of this case was divided into the B road B 334 square meters (hereinafter “the land of this case”) on December 29, 1973, and the land category on the same day was changed to the “road” on the grounds that the Plaintiff completed the registration of preservation of ownership on January 16, 1995 pursuant to the former Act on Special Measures for the Registration, etc. of Ownership of Real Estate (Act No. 4502, Nov. 30, 1992).
B. On December 24, 1987, the Defendant, as to the occupation and use of the instant land, has determined and announced the instant land as a road zone under the Road Act. From that moment, the Defendant occupied and used the instant land as a part of the instant land, and occupied and used it as a road (the current local highway D line) by packaging the instant land in order to connect each point of the attached drawing Nos. 12, 3, 4, 5, 6, 17, 16, 15, 14, 13, and 12, among the instant land to the present time.
2. Return of unjust enrichment:
A. According to the above facts of recognition as to the cause of the claim, the defendant acquired profit equivalent to the rent by occupying and using the portion of the land in this case as the road, and thereby suffered loss equivalent to the same amount to the plaintiff who is the owner.
Therefore, barring any special circumstance, the defendant is obligated to return the amount equivalent to the rent from October 1, 2010 to the date on which the defendant's occupation was completed or the date on which the plaintiff loses his/her ownership in the land of this case from October 1, 2010 to the date on which the
I would like to say.
[The claim for return of unjust enrichment for the period after the date of the closing of argument in the plaintiff's claim is a future performance suit, and the defendant refuses to return unjust enrichment equivalent to the rent for the use of the land in this case until the date of closing of argument.