beta
Text
The Plaintiff, the Appointor C, the Appointor D and the Defendant (Appointeds) together with KRW 6,102,223.
Reasons
1. Basic facts
A. On May 28, 2002, the Plaintiff purchased shares of 19.83/62.8 square meters in Jongno-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government Fran 62.8 square meters (hereinafter “instant land”) from E and completed the registration of ownership transfer on June 7, 2002.
B. From August 1, 1994, the Selected C sold 1/2 shares of each of the designated parties D and the Defendant (hereinafter “Defendant, etc.”) on November 1, 2016, when he owned one-story and one-story’s neighborhood living facilities (large restaurant) in the instant land (hereinafter “instant building”), and completed the registration of transfer of each of the above shares in D and Defendant B on November 2, 2016.
[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1, 2, and 3, the purport of the whole pleadings
2. Determination on the cause of the claim
A. In light of social norms, the right to claim restitution of unjust enrichment cannot exist, and thus, the land which became the site for the building is occupied by the owner of the building. In such cases, even if the owner of the building does not actually occupy the building or its site, it shall be deemed that the land occupies the land for the purpose of owning the building (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2009Da28462, Sept. 10, 2009). In light of the above legal principles, as seen earlier, it is recognized that the Defendant et al. owned the building of this case and owned the land of this case owned by the Plaintiff, as seen earlier, as seen earlier, and barring any special circumstance, the Defendant et al. personally gains profit equivalent to the rent for the pertinent land, and thus, the Plaintiff and co-owners inflict damages equivalent to the same amount, and thus, the amount equivalent to the share of the Plaintiff out of the amount equivalent to the land corresponding to the period during which the Plaintiff owned the building of this case shall be returned to the Plaintiff as unjust enrichment.