logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 서울남부지방법원 2017.07.06 2017나50643
부당이득금
Text

1. The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Defendant.

Purport of claim and appeal

1...

Reasons

1. The court's explanation of this case is the same as the part of the reasoning of the judgment of the first instance except for the addition of the following additional determinations, thereby citing it as it is in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

2. The defendant asserts to the purport that the calculation of the rent after October 2015 based on Gap evidence No. 3 is improper, since there is an error in calculating the rent on the premise that the above land is a site condition, and the appraisal time was made in 2011, since the appraisal time was made in 201 and the appraisal time was not reflected in the subsequent interest rate decline or real estate competition erosion, considering the fact that the appraiser’s appraisal on the contents of Gap evidence No. 3 (Appraisal Report) should be calculated based on the statement No. 3 (Appraisal Report) and the amount of rent after October 2015 is unreasonable.

In a case where the owner of a building located on another’s land without any legal cause calculates the amount of unjust enrichment equivalent to the rent of the land to be returned to the owner of the land by occupying the land without any legal cause, barring any special circumstance, the circumstances where the right to use the land is restricted by the use of the land due to the location of the building on the land (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 94Da61144, Sept. 15, 1995). Therefore, in calculating the rent of the above land in Yangcheon-gu Seoul, Yangcheon-gu I, Seoul, and F land, it cannot be deemed that there was an error of calculating the rent on the premise that the above land is a site condition. Even if there was a lower interest rate or real estate competition with the Defendant’s assertion after 2011, considering the fact that the land price of the above land in Yangcheon-gu Seoul, Yangcheon-gu, Seoul, was continuously increased by 20% compared to the year 2011.

arrow