부당이득금반환
1. The plaintiff's lawsuit against the defendants is dismissed in entirety.
2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.
1. Whether the lawsuit of this case is legitimate
(a) The facts under the recognition do not conflict between the parties, or are recognized by comprehensively taking account of the overall purport of the pleadings in each description of Gap evidence of No. 1, 2, 3, Eul evidence of No. 1, 2, and 7 (including each number; hereinafter the same shall apply).
1) C is the 2,119 square meters of land in Gwangju City prior to subdivision (hereinafter “D land prior to subdivision”).
A) The Plaintiff B, as the owner of the instant land Nos. 2 and 3, is a special high voltage processing and transmission line over the airspace above each of the said lands (hereinafter “instant transmission line”).
2) A lawsuit seeking the return of unjust enrichment from the Defendant, which is owned and managed by the Defendant, (Seoul Central District Court 2003Gahap28151, hereinafter referred to as “previous lawsuit”)
(2) On May 14, 2004, the above court filed a lawsuit. The above court rendered a judgment that "the defendant has obtained unjust enrichment equivalent to the rent corresponding to the divided superficies by installing and using the power transmission line without permission on each of the above lands," and that "C and B obtained unjust enrichment from April 15, 2003 to April 16, 2003, and from April 16, 2003 to the date of removal of the power transmission line of this case or the date of loss of ownership on each of the above lands, 19,517 won (the land No. 2 of this case) and 334,541 won (the land No. 2 of this case) and 221,184 won (the land of this case No. 3 of this case)" that "the above judgment became final and conclusive (hereinafter "the final judgment of this case").
3) On June 29, 2004, the ownership of D land prior to subdivision was transferred to the Plaintiff, and was divided into the instant land No. 1, E, and D land on December 13, 201. Of D land prior to subdivision, the part on which the transmission line is installed on the air above the instant land after subdivision belongs to the instant land No. 1. B. After the date of closing argument of the Plaintiffs’ previous lawsuit, the land Nos. 1, 2, and 3 (hereinafter “each of the instant land”).
The price is considerably erroneous and the future rent cited in the final and conclusive judgment of this case is not reasonable.