logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 의정부지방법원 2019.08.28 2018가단130602
건물철거 등
Text

1. The defendant against the plaintiffs

A. Of the land size of 238 square meters in Gyeonggi-gu, Gyeonggi-do, the respective points are indicated in the attached Form 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, and 1.

Reasons

1. Determination as to the cause of claim

A. The Plaintiffs, on June 28, 2018, completed the registration of transfer of ownership based on sale on December 8, 2017, with respect to the land of 238 square meters (hereinafter “instant land”) in the proportion of each 1/2 shares, respectively, in the proportion of each 1/2 shares.

Of the instant land, the building owned by the Defendant (hereinafter “instant building”) is constructed on the ground of 11 square meters in parts of “A” connected to each point of the attached Form 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, and 1, in turn, among the instant land.

(C) Facts that there is no dispute, Gap 1-3 evidence, the purport of the whole pleadings.

The Defendant, as the owner of the instant land, is obligated to remove the instant building and deliver the part of the land (hereinafter “the part occupied by the Defendant among the instant land”) and return the amount of profit earned from the possession and use of the land.

C. The amount of unjust enrichment returned is the amount equivalent to the rent of the pertinent real estate. From June 28, 2018, the Plaintiffs acquired the ownership of the instant land to May 2, 2019, the rent per square meter of the instant land from June 28, 2018 to May 2, 2019, is 2,730 won per month (the result of the appraisal of rent by the appraiser E) and the subsequent rent thereafter.

Therefore, from June 28, 2018, the amount of unjust enrichment to be returned by the Defendant is 30,030 won per month (2,730 won x 11 square meters) from June 28, 2018 to the day when delivery of “the occupied part of the instant land” is completed.

2. The defendant's defense of abuse of rights is defense that the defendant's request for removal and delivery of this case constitutes abuse of rights on the following grounds.

In other words, on March 4, 1987, the Defendant knows that “the part occupied by the Defendant out of the instant land” is within the scope of the said F land from the date of acquisition of ownership of a building with a size of 288 square meters and its ground adjacent to the instant land, to 2001.

arrow