부당이득금
1. The defendant's petition for retrial is dismissed;
2. The costs of retrial shall be borne by the defendant.
1. The following facts are apparent or apparent in records in the judgment subject to a retrial.
The Plaintiff filed a lawsuit against the Defendant seeking restitution of unjust enrichment (No. 2011Gadan212251). On December 14, 2011, the first instance court rendered a judgment that fully accepted the Plaintiff’s claim.
B. The Defendant dissatisfied with this, and appealed as 2012Na807, and the appellate court changed the first instance judgment on June 19, 2014, and rendered a judgment dismissing the remainder of the claims.
C. The Plaintiff and the Defendant appealed to the Supreme Court Decision 2014Da44932, respectively. The Supreme Court accepted the Plaintiff and the Defendant’s appeal on October 30, 2014, respectively, and reversed and remanded the said appellate judgment.
The appellate court rendered a judgment that partly accepted the plaintiff's claim and dismissed the remaining claim by modifying the first instance court's judgment according to the purport of reversal and transmission of the Supreme Court's judgment and the plaintiff's
(Seoul Central District Court Decision 2014Na60155 decided June 26, 2015, hereinafter referred to as "Seoul Central District Court Decision") e.g.
On October 29, 2015, the defendant appealed to the Supreme Court as 2015Da44229, but the Supreme Court dismissed the defendant's appeal by a judgment of non-judicial failure on October 29, 2015, and the above judgment of the Supreme Court became final and conclusive by serving the defendant on November 3, 2015.
F. Meanwhile, in the appellate trial following the remand, the defendant acquired the ownership of the site upon receipt of the certificate of completion inspection under the Act on Special Measures for Arrangement of Specific Buildings (amended by Act No. 3719 of Dec. 31, 1983 and enforced June 30, 1985; hereinafter “Specific Building Act”) from an unauthorized building upon the delivery of the certificate of completion inspection in accordance with the said Act. Since the defendant purchased the F/D building on the ground F/D building in Gwanak-gu, Seoul Special Metropolitan City (hereinafter “instant land”), it is believed as above and thus, it is not subject to the collection of indemnity pursuant to Article 72(1)1 of the State Property Act.