beta
Text
1. The Defendant: (a) KRW 9,609,764 to the Plaintiff; (b) 5% per annum from November 29, 2013 to December 9, 2015; and (c) from the following day.
Reasons
Facts of recognition
The Plaintiff, as the executor of the Bogeumjari Housing Project in the B Project District, has purchased a bid of 13,094m2 (hereinafter referred to as the “instant land”) and a building on the ground in the Si-Yung-si in which the said project district belongs, and has purchased the same year from January 16, 2012.
7.6. By June, the registration of ownership transfer shall be completed.
Around May 2012, the Central Land Expropriation Committee rendered an expropriation of KRW 67,135,00 for all facilities including the Defendant’s business rights at KRW 67,135,00,00, on the ground of the seizure of the Defendant’s right of claim on April 15, 2013, the Defendant deposited the Defendant with the principal as a deposit on the said compensation on the ground of the seizure of the claim on April 15, 2013.
Then, the defendant is required to leave the plaintiff
Without responding to the Gu, the building in this case is under possession and use until the date of closing argument, and the plaintiff has failed to perform the development work of the land in this case necessary for the implementation of the project.
【In light of the above-mentioned facts without any dispute, Gap 1-3, 6, 8-9 evidence, and the purport of the entire pleading, it can be evaluated that the defendant occupied and used the land of this case in relation to the plaintiff as the owner of the land and building of this case by occupying and using the building of this case. Thus, barring any special circumstance, the defendant is obligated to return its use gains to the plaintiff as unjust enrichment.
In this regard, the defendant asserts that since the plaintiff did not establish measures for relocation pursuant to Article 78-2 of the Act on Acquisition of and Compensation for Land, etc. for Public Works Projects and Article 41-3 of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act, the defendant cannot be deemed to possess the land of this case without any legal ground. However, the defendant's assertion is not legally entitled to enjoy the profits from the use of the land of this case or a building because it did not establish measures for relocation.