부당이득금반환
1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.
2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.
1. Basic facts
A. On August 10, 1974, the Plaintiff completed the registration of ownership transfer with respect to the area of 119 square meters (hereinafter “land before subdivision”) prior to Gyeyang-gu, Gyeyang-gu (hereinafter “Seoul-gu”). The land before subdivision was divided into the area of 80 square meters prior to B on June 25, 1991 (hereinafter “instant land”) and the area of 39 square meters prior to C.
On the other hand, the land of this case was not restored, and the land of this case C was partitioned and adjusted, and its land cadastre was closed.
B. From May 1978, the Defendant is occupying and using the instant land as a road.
[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1, 2, Eul evidence 2 and 3, the purport of the whole pleadings
2. The parties' assertion
A. Since the Defendant alleged that the Plaintiff’s assertion obtained unjust enrichment equivalent to the rent by using the instant land owned by the Plaintiff without title after incorporating it into a road, the Defendant is obligated to return to the Plaintiff unjust enrichment of KRW 480,133 per month from May 1, 2009 to April 30, 2014, the aggregate amount equivalent to the rent from May 1, 2009 to April 30, and from May 1, 2014 to May 1, 2014 and from May 1, 2014 to the date on which the Defendant occupies the instant land or the Plaintiff loses ownership.
B. Since the Defendant’s assertion that the land before subdivision was accepted as a road and completed compensation to the Plaintiff, the Plaintiff cannot seek a return of unjust enrichment on the instant land in accordance with the good faith principle.
3. We examine the above facts. Further to the above facts, we examine the following circumstances, which are acknowledged as comprehensively considering the overall purport of arguments in Gap evidence Nos. 1, Eul evidence Nos. 1, Eul evidence Nos. 4 and Eul evidence Nos. 4 through 6, i.e., the defendant, around September 19, 1978, accepted land before subdivision as part of a road between ordinary high-speed and unification, and paid compensation to the plaintiff on September 19, 1979, and received documents necessary for the registration of transfer of ownership of the land before subdivision from the plaintiff, and ② the plaintiff on June 14, 191 as to the land before subdivision, on the ground of a pre-sale agreement for sale on June 8, 191.