beta
Text
1. The defendant shall pay to the plaintiff KRW 12,08,191 and KRW 3,349,672 from January 1, 2009, KRW 2,832,602.
Reasons
1. Facts of recognition;
A. The Plaintiff is a corporation established under the Act on the Efficient Disposal of Non-Performing Assets, etc. of Financial Companies and the Establishment of Korea Asset Management Corporation, and was entrusted by the Republic of Korea with the management and disposal of Seodaemun-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government 4,58 square meters (hereinafter “instant land”) owned by the Republic of Korea pursuant to the said Act and other relevant statutes.
B. From April 1, 2006 to December 31, 2010, the Defendant resided in a building without permission on the instant land, and used or made profits from the said land during the aforementioned period. The amount of unjust enrichment per rent due to the Defendant’s occupation and use of the land is KRW 20,711,464 as stated in attached Table 1, and the amount of unjust enrichment per rent due from the Defendant’s occupation and use of the said land from April 24, 2008 to December 31, 2010 is KRW 12,08,191, as stated in attached Table 2.
[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, entry of Gap evidence 1 to 3, and purport of the whole pleadings
2. Determination
A. (1) According to the above facts of recognition, the Defendant is obligated to pay to the Plaintiff unjust enrichment of KRW 20,711,464 per rent due to the possession and use of the instant land from April 1, 2006 to December 31, 2010, barring any special circumstance.
(2) The judgment on the defendant's assertion (A) first of all, Article 72 (1) 2 of the State Property Act provides that "no indemnity shall be collected where the State or a local government has occupied, used, or profit from State property for a certain period of time due to unavoidable reasons, such as countermeasures against disasters, etc." The Seoul Special Metropolitan City has allowed residents, including the defendant, to occupy and use the land of this case without compensation due to inevitable reasons in the level of social relief or urban planning, so the defendant's land possession constitutes an exception to the above State Property
Therefore, the defendant is therefore the plaintiff's this case.