부당이득금
1. All appeals by the Defendants are dismissed.
2. The costs of appeal are assessed against the Defendants.
Purport of claim and appeal
1.
1. The reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance cited this case is as stated in the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance (excluding the corresponding part as to Defendant C Co., Ltd. of the court of first instance), except for the assertion that the Defendants emphasized in the trial of the court of first instance as stated in the following paragraph (2). Thus, this is cited by the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act
2. On the 4th page 19 of the judgment of the court of first instance, the part to be cut off by cutting the “instant land” into “each of its own land”.
No. 11 of the judgment of the first instance court, and No. 15 of the judgment of the first instance, "3. Judgment on the defendants' defense" shall be made as follows.
3. Determination as to the defendants' defense
A. The Defendants asserted to the effect that the Plaintiffs’ claim in this case is groundless, since they renounced their exclusive and exclusive rights to use and benefit from the instant land, or acquired the ownership of land, the exercise of exclusive and exclusive rights to use and benefit from which is limited.
B. In full view of the following circumstances: (a) the details and period of holding the land owner’s ownership; (b) the details and scale of the land owner’s provision of the land for public use; (c) the owner’s interest or convenience; (d) the location and form of the relevant part of the land; (c) the relationship with neighboring land; and (d) the comparison and balancing between the ownership guarantee of the land owner and the public interest, if the owner is deemed to have waived the exclusive and exclusive right to use and benefit from the land, the other person occupies
Even if there are no special circumstances, the land owner cannot be deemed to have suffered any loss due to the land owner’s failure to file a claim for return of unjust enrichment against the land owner.
Supreme Court Decisions 88Da11889 Decided July 11, 1989; 91Da11889 Decided July 9, 1991; 96Da36852 Decided November 29, 1996; 96Da36852 Decided November 20, 2004