부당이득금
1. The defendant shall be the plaintiff.
(a) KRW 1,923,00 per annum from June 17, 2016 to January 25, 2017; and
1. Facts of recognition;
A. On February 19, 2010, the Plaintiff completed the registration procedure for transfer of ownership due to a compulsory auction on January 26, 2010 for the instant real estate.
B. Around December 1, 1938, the instant real estate was designated as a 15 line of local highway under the Joseon Road Order, and was designated as a 316 line of local highway on February 1, 1968, and was currently managed by the Defendant, designating it as a 56 line of national highway on July 19, 196.
C. On June 3, 1991, the category of the instant real estate was changed from the site to the road.
[Reasons for Recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1, Eul evidence Nos. 1 to 7, the purport of the whole pleadings
2. Determination
A. According to the fact that the obligation to return unjust enrichment was established, the Defendant is obligated to return the instant real estate as unjust enrichment, since the Defendant occupied and used the instant real estate without a legitimate authority to possess it, thereby gaining profit equivalent to the profits from use, and thereby making the Plaintiff incur loss equivalent to the same amount.
B. On December 1, 1938, when the real estate of this case was designated as 15 line of local highway No. 15 on December 1, 193, 1938, the Defendant asserted that the prescription period for the acquisition of possession was completed on or around December 1, 1958 by occupying the real estate of this case as 20 years since it was designated as Do highway No. 15 line. However, as the Defendant alleged, even if the prescription period for the acquisition of possession was completed on or around December 1, 1958, the Defendant cannot claim the acquisition by prescription against the Plaintiff as long as the Plaintiff had registered the transfer of ownership on or around February 19, 201 between the Plaintiff and the Plaintiff without the registration under the Defendant’s name, and the Defendant’s above assertion is without merit.