beta
Text
1. The Defendant is the Plaintiff with respect to each real estate indicated in the separate sheet from November 28, 2014 to KRW 2,024,849 and the Plaintiff.
Reasons
1. The following facts may be found either in dispute between the parties or in full view of the purport of the entire pleadings at each video of Gap evidence 1-1-2, evidence 4-1, and evidence 4-2:
B completed the registration of ownership transfer concerning each real estate listed in the separate sheet (hereinafter “each of the instant real estate”) on October 5, 2012, and the Plaintiff completed the registration of ownership transfer on February 27, 2013.
B. From around 2001 to the date of the closing of argument of this case, the Defendant owned a factory building on the land of this case and owned and used each of the real estate of this case on the ground of the land adjacent to the real estate of this case.
2. Comprehensively taking account of the above facts acknowledged as above, the Defendant occupied and used each of the instant real estate without title against the Plaintiff. As such, after the date of acquisition of the Plaintiff’s ownership, the Plaintiff is obligated to pay the amount equivalent to the rent due to the return of unjust enrichment to the Plaintiff from February 28, 2013 to the date when the Plaintiff loses ownership or the Defendant’s possession ends.
According to the result of appraiser D’s appraisal of rent, the sum of rent for each of the instant real estate from February 28, 2013 to December 31, 2013 is KRW 958,849 (i.e., KRW 140,000 to below KRW 307/365). The sum of rent for the period from January 1, 2014 to November 27, 2014, which is close to the date of the closing of the instant argument, is KRW 1,06,00, and the rent for the period from February 28, 2013 to December 31, 2013, is confirmed to be equal after November 28, 2014.
Therefore, the Defendant is obligated to pay to the Plaintiff the amount calculated by applying the rate of KRW 2,024,849 (=958,849 1,066,00) and KRW 98,000 per month from November 28, 2014 to the date when the Plaintiff loses ownership or the Defendant’s possession ends.
3. In conclusion, the plaintiff's claim of this case is justified within the above scope of recognition, and the remaining claims are dismissed as they are without merit. It is so ordered as per Disposition.