beta
(영문) 수원지방법원 2019.05.23 2018나62485

부당이득금반환

Text

1. Of the judgment of the court of first instance, the part against the Defendants is revoked, and the Plaintiff’s portion of revocation is against the Defendants.

Reasons

1. Basic facts

A. E resided with the Plaintiff in the instant apartment owned by oneself, and died on May 26, 2011.

B. The Plaintiff is a person born between E and F, and Defendant C is a person born between E and Defendant D.

C. Upon the death of E (hereinafter “the deceased”), both the Plaintiff and Defendant C inherited the deceased’s property by 1/2 shares, respectively.

On September 19, 2011, the Plaintiff and the Defendants were living together in the apartment of this case for a certain period of time. On September 19, 2011, the Plaintiff moved out from the apartment of this case.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 4, 6, purport of the whole pleadings

2. The parties' assertion

A. From September 19, 2011, Plaintiff Defendants laid the Plaintiff in the instant apartment from around September 19, 201, and resided in the said apartment and used exclusively.

Therefore, the Defendants are jointly and severally obligated to pay to the Plaintiff the amount equivalent to KRW 53,01,00,000 for unjust enrichment from September 19, 201 to August 31, 2016, and the delay damages thereof, and the amount equivalent to KRW 945,50,00 for each month from September 1, 201 to September 1, 201, or from September 1, 2016 to the day when the delivery of the said apartment is completed or the Plaintiff’s co-ownership of the said apartment is lost.

B. The Plaintiff kept the Plaintiff’s goods in his room even after leaving the apartment of this case, and prevented the Defendants from opening the door. At any time, the Plaintiff used and used the apartment of this case while coming to the apartment of this case, and allowed the Defendants to use and benefit from the apartment of this case. Thus, the Plaintiff’s right to claim the return of unjust enrichment against the Defendants is not recognized.

3. Determination

A. The relevant legal principles provide that a co-owner may use and benefit from all the co-owned property at the ratio of shares, and that matters concerning the management of the co-owned property shall be determined by a majority of co-owners' shares. As such, co-owners share share the method of specific use