부당이득반환청구의 소
1. The part of the judgment of the court of first instance against the plaintiff, which orders payment below, shall be revoked.
The defendant.
1. The reasoning for the court’s explanation concerning this part of the underlying facts is as stated in Paragraph 1 of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act, since the reasoning for the judgment of the court of first instance is the same as that for the reasons for the judgment of the court of first instance, except for the partial revision as follows.
The second place of the judgment of the first instance shall be "factory site" of the second place of the judgment of the court of first instance with "2,960 square meters for factory site".
The 3th and 16th of the judgment of the first instance court stated that the 12th and 17th of the 17th as the N of the 1st instance court appraiser N, and the 17th as the 17th “the result of the 17th instance court’s inquiry as to the fact-finding with respect to the fact-finding branch of the Korea Land Information Corporation,” respectively.
The third written judgment of the court of first instance (attached Form 2) shall be in accordance with the third written judgment of the court of first instance (attached Form 2).
2. Determination as to return of unjust enrichment or claim for damages arising from the unauthorized use of land
A. The Plaintiff’s assertion (1) From February 2, 2006 to March 31, 2017, the Defendant or the lessee of the Defendant occupied and used part of the Plaintiff’s land by means of vehicle traffic, parking, installation of containers, installation of home facilities, etc. without any legal ground, and gains profit equivalent to the rent, and the Plaintiff suffered loss equivalent to the same amount. As such, the Defendant is obligated to return the profit from the occupation and use of the Plaintiff’s land to the Plaintiff as unjust enrichment.
(2) The Defendant’s representative director P, without a legitimate title, has installed containers and household facilities in part of the Plaintiff’s land or had the Defendant lessee install them for the above period without any justifiable title. The Defendant’s lessee impliedly admitted the Defendant’s use of part of the Plaintiff’s land as the vehicle passage and parking lot, thereby incurring considerable damages to the Plaintiff. As such, the Defendant is liable to compensate the Plaintiff for the damages suffered by the Plaintiff.
(3) The defendant is against the plaintiff's unlawful act or the representative director's unlawful act.