부당이득금
1. All appeals by the defendant against the plaintiffs are dismissed.
2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Defendant.
purport, purport, and.
1. The reasoning of the judgment of this court citing the judgment of the court of first instance is as stated in the corresponding part of the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance, except for any additional determination as follows. Thus, it is acceptable in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420
The second judgment of the first instance court, even if the evidence submitted by the Plaintiff is examined, the argument that “no substantial benefit exists” among the grounds alleged by the Defendant in the trial while filing an appeal does not differ significantly from the grounds alleged in the first instance court.
B. (1) The determination on the part described above is justifiable.
2. Additional Judgment
A. First, the defendant and the non-party S, who is the former occupant, have occupied the part of the crime of this case in peace and openly with the intention of ownership for at least 20 years, and therefore, the defendant asserts that the plaintiffs are in a position to claim the implementation of the procedure for the registration of ownership transfer due to the completion of acquisition by prescription, and that the plaintiffs cannot claim the return of unjust enrichment due to possession against the defendant.
Since a person who intends to purchase an ordinary real estate enters into a sales contract after confirming ownership, size, etc. by a certified copy of the register or cadastral record before entering into the sales contract, it is reasonable to deem that the contracting party was aware of such fact if the area of the land subject to the sale considerably exceeds the area entered in the public record. In such a case, barring special circumstances such as the seller’s acquisition of ownership, transfer of ownership, etc., the excess portion shall be deemed a sale of the right of occupation and use, and
(See Supreme Court Decision 2003Da61054 delivered on May 14, 2004). The following circumstances, i.e., the Defendant, in general construction business, housing construction business, housing sales business, etc., are comprehensively considered in the descriptions and images of evidence Nos. 2, 3, 5, and Nos. 1 through 4.