부당이득금반환
1. The part against the plaintiff corresponding to the money ordered to be paid under the judgment of the court of first instance shall be revoked.
The defendant.
1. Basic facts
A. The registration of ownership preservation was completed in the Defendant’s future on December 3, 1985 with respect to B forest No. 1,335 square meters (hereinafter “instant land”) in the East Sea as the Chuncheon District Court’s East Sea Registry on December 3, 1985.
B. The Plaintiff planted trees on the instant land without the Defendant’s consent before several years of age.
C. On November 26, 2013, the instant land owned by the Defendant was incorporated into C Road Construction, and the compensation procedure was commenced, and the Plaintiff was requested by the Korea Appraisal Board to enter into a compensation agreement that calculated the compensation amount of KRW 16,00,000 from KRW 294,00,00, which was planted on the ground of the instant land (hereinafter “instant decrease”). On June 19, 2014, the Plaintiff was notified by the Korea Appraisal Board that the instant decrease, which was planted on the ground of the instant land, correspond to the instant land, and thus, the Plaintiff would be required to pay compensation to the Defendant.
Meanwhile, on the other hand, the Plaintiff received a disposition to impose indemnity on the State Forest Management Office on the ground that he/she occupies 487 square meters of the instant land among the instant land from the Sejong State Forest Management Office, and paid indemnity of KRW 269,450 (the occupied portion from October 1, 2008 to September 16, 2013) on October 8, 2013, and paid indemnity of KRW 15,190 (the occupied portion from October 1, 2013 to December 31, 2013) on March 20, 2014.
[Reasons for Recognition] Each entry of Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 4 (including paper numbers), the purport of the whole pleadings
2. The fact that the land in this case was owned by the defendant, and the fact that the plaintiff planted the trees in this case without the defendant's consent is recognized as above. Thus, the defendant, the owner of the land in this case, acquired the ownership of the trees in this case pursuant to the main sentence of Article 256 of the Civil Act.
Therefore, the defendant is obligated to return to the plaintiff the amount equivalent to the value of the instant tree, which was consistent with the damage suffered by the plaintiff pursuant to Article 261 of the Civil Act, as unjust enrichment.