beta
Text
1. The judgment of the first instance court, including the claims extended and reduced in this court, shall be modified as follows:
Reasons
1. Basic facts
A. On June 28, 2018, the Plaintiffs completed the registration of ownership transfer for each of 1/2 shares out of 238 square meters (hereinafter “D land”) in Gyeonggi-gu, Gyeonggi-do, for sale on December 8, 2017.
B. The Defendant completed the registration of transfer of ownership on March 4, 1987 with respect to the Flue-gun of Gyeonggi-gu F 228 square meters (hereinafter “F land”) and its ground buildings (hereinafter “F buildings”).
C. Of the D land owned by the Plaintiffs, part of the F building owned by the Defendant (hereinafter “instant building”) is located on the ground of the 17m2 of the part “1” portion on the ground of the attached Form No. 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, and 1, connected in order to each point of the attached Form No. 1, 2, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10
Of the instant land, the amount equivalent to the rent from June 28, 2018 to May 2, 2019 with respect to part (11 square meters) of the instant land is KRW 30,030 per month.
In the first instance trial, F buildings conducted a rent appraisal on the premise that the area in which the land was invadedd by F is 11 square meters (the amount equivalent to the rent based on the above appraisal results is KRW 30,030 per month), and it was found that the area in the course of the appellate trial is 17 square meters.
[Ground of recognition] Each entry of Gap evidence Nos. 1, 3, 8, 13, Eul evidence Nos. 3 and 4 (including each number number; hereinafter the same shall apply), the result of the appraisal conducted by the appraiser E of the first instance trial, the purport of the whole pleadings
2. Determination on the cause of the claim
A. According to the above facts of recognition as to the request for removal of buildings and delivery of land, the defendant has a duty to remove the building of this case to the plaintiffs and deliver the land of this case, unless there are special circumstances.
B. According to the above facts finding as to the claim for return of unjust enrichment, the defendant is obligated to return the unjust enrichment since the plaintiffs acquired 1/2 shares of each of the land of this case and thereafter acquired benefits without any legal ground by occupying and using the land of this case, and thereby incurred losses equivalent to the same amount to the plaintiffs.
Generally, real estate;