부당이득금
1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.
2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Plaintiff.
3. The plaintiff's request reduction.
1. Grounds of the judgment of the court of first instance for the facts constituting the basis
A. In addition to the deletion of the part of “the Plaintiff paid KRW 10 million to F, as E does not pay KRW 10 million,” the reason for this part is that this Court is identical to that of the first instance judgment, and therefore, it is acceptable to accept it as it is in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act, as it is, in accordance with the reasoning of the first instance judgment.
2. Determination
A. On the ground of the judgment of the court of first instance as to the claim for partition of co-owned property, the "No. 12" of No. 4 is replaced by "No. 12, 18, 19", and this part is to be stated by the "No. 2 of the judgment of the court of first instance."
Since it is the same as the paragraph, it is quoted as it is.
B. The defendant should bear KRW 5,098,200, which is the amount corresponding to the defendant's share (1/3) out of the costs for the registration of ownership transfer and the cost for the divisional survey, and the fact that the defendant paid KRW 5,025,60 to the plaintiff after the judgment of the court of first instance is rendered that there is no dispute between the parties.
(B) The Plaintiff is obligated to pay to the Plaintiff the remainder 72,600 won and the damages for delay calculated at the rate of 5% per annum as stipulated in the Civil Act from May 1, 2018 to July 23, 2020, which is the date of a decision of the competent court, which is appropriate to dispute the existence or scope of the Defendant’s obligation to pay to the Plaintiff the remainder 72,600 won and the amount of damages for delay calculated at the rate of 12% per annum as stipulated in the Act on Special Cases Concerning the Promotion, etc. of Legal Proceedings from the next day to the date of full payment.
[Plaintiff’s claim for delay damages from September 12, 2013. However, the obligation for return of unjust enrichment is a debt with no fixed due date and is liable for delay from the day following the receipt of the claim for performance, and there is no evidence to prove that the Plaintiff had requested the performance to the Defendant before the filing of the instant lawsuit. Thus, from the day following the delivery of a copy of the complaint (the Plaintiff’s complaint)