부당이득금
All of the Plaintiff’s claims are dismissed.
Litigation costs shall be borne by the plaintiff.
1. The plaintiff's assertion that the defendant owned the building on the ground of the land of this case without permission. Thus, the plaintiff, the owner of the land of this case, is obligated to remove the building and return the profit equivalent to the profit of use of the land of this case as unjust enrichment.
2. As a matter of social norms cannot exist in a building site, the land which became the site for the building shall be deemed to have been possessed by the owner of the building. In such cases, even if the owner of the building does not actually occupy the building or its site, it shall be deemed that he/she occupies the building site for the purpose of owning the building.
In full view of the overall purport of the pleadings in each video as evidence Nos. 1 through 5, 10 evidence Nos. 6 through 9, 2002Da57935 delivered on Nov. 13, 2003, the following facts are acknowledged: (a) Class II neighborhood living facilities (b), Dadong (hereinafter “instant building”) on the ground of the instant land owned by Nonparty C; (b) the Defendant entered into a contract for the construction of the instant building with Nonparty C; (c) the Defendant asserted that he is the lien holder of the instant building; and (d) attached a banner and a notice informing of the exercise of lien to the part of the instant building by asserting that he is the lien holder of the instant building; and (e) according to the above facts of recognition, the instant claim under the premise that the Defendant is the owner of the instant building, merely because the owner of the instant building is the Nonparty C, and the Defendant asserts that he is the lien holder of the instant building. Therefore, the instant claim under the premise that the Defendant is the owner of the instant building is without merit.
3. In conclusion, the plaintiff's claim of this case is dismissed as it is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.