부당이득금
1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.
2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.
1. Facts of recognition;
A. The Sungnam-gu Mayor designated the Plaintiff as the implementer of the C-Housing Redevelopment Improvement Project (hereinafter “instant rearrangement project”) to be implemented on the B 233,366 square meters in Seongbuk-gu, Sungnam-gu, Sungnam-gu. The said designation was publicly announced.
On December 4, 2009, the Sungnam City approved the implementation plan of the instant rearrangement project and announced it on the same day, and on February 5, 2016, approved the alteration plan for the implementation of the instant rearrangement project as D public notification of the Sungnam City.
The Plaintiff established a management and disposal plan for the instant improvement project, and on November 7, 2016, the Sungnam City approved the above management and disposal plan as E publicly notified by Sungnam City.
B. The Defendant is the former owner of the building indicated in the attached list located within the instant rearrangement project zone (hereinafter “instant building”).
C. In relation to the instant improvement project, the Plaintiff filed an application for adjudication of expropriation with the Central Land Expropriation Committee, and on February 8, 2018, the Central Land Expropriation Committee determined the commencement date of expropriation on March 28, 2018 and rendered adjudication of expropriation on the instant building.
On March 27, 2018, the Plaintiff deposited the expropriation compensation in accordance with the above expropriation ruling, and acquired the ownership of the instant building on March 28, 2018.
[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1, 4 through 6, 8 through 10 (including paper numbers), the purport of the whole pleadings
2. The assertion and judgment as to the cause of the claim
A. The Plaintiff asserted that, even after the instant expropriation, the Plaintiff sought payment of unjust enrichment equivalent to the rent on the ground that the Defendant resided on May 5, 2018 from the first floor of the instant building to May 5, 2018. 2) The Defendant asserted that, although the Defendant’s mother resided in the instant building, he/she leased and resided on the first floor of G adjacent to the instant building, he/she did not actually use and take profit from the instant building.
B. Determination as to whether the Defendant occupied the building of this case 1) Gap evidence No. 2, Eul evidence No. 14 (including paper numbers and all of the arguments).