beta
Text
1. The judgment of the first instance court, including a claim extended and reduced in the trial, shall be modified as follows:
The defendant.
Reasons
1. The reasoning for this part of the judgment of the court is the same as the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance, and thus, this part is cited pursuant to the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.
2. The Plaintiff’s assertion that the Defendant leased the instant building owned by the Defendant solely, and ① KRW 481,030,000 from January 2005 to October 2016 (= KRW 467,030,000 that the Defendant received from N in cash) (i.e., KRW 14,000,000 that the Defendant received from N in cash), ② From November 2006 to October 2017, KRW 32,040,000, ③ from January 1, 2007, and ③ from January 1, 2007 to October 10, 2016, profits of KRW 19,138,040 in total, KRW 532,208,040 equivalent to the interest on the lease deposit.
Therefore, the Defendant is obligated to return to the Plaintiff KRW 235,089,660 equivalent to the Plaintiff’s share in KRW 470,179,320, which was obtained by deducting KRW 62,028,720, such as management expenses paid by the Defendant, from the above KRW 532,208,040, as unjust enrichment.
3. Determination
A. Since a co-owner may use and benefit from all the co-owners' share of the jointly owned property at the rate of their share, and the matters concerning the management of the jointly owned property are determined by a majority of co-owners' share, if one of the co-owners exclusively occupies and uses the jointly owned property without the agreement of a majority of shares among the co-owners with respect to the method of using and benefit from the jointly owned property, the other co-owners are making unjust enrichment with regard to the amount equivalent to their share of the other co-owners (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2006Da49307, 49314, Nov. 24, 2006). According to the facts acknowledged earlier, even if the Plaintiff and the building were jointly owned at the rate of 1/2 share, the Defendant leases the building of this case to a third party from January 200 to October 2017 and takes advantage of the building of this case exclusively by receiving lease deposit and rent from the lessee.
Therefore, barring special circumstances, the defendant is out of the benefits arising from exclusive use and benefit of the building of this case.