beta
Text
1. The defendant,
A. Plaintiff A: KRW 7,141,540; KRW 16,169,610 to Plaintiff B; KRW 4,413,510 to Plaintiff C; and each of the said money.
Reasons
1. Facts of recognition;
A. On April 28, 1978, the land category of the instant land was changed to a road on the same day on the same day as the F 2,215 square meters and G 418 square meters (hereinafter “instant land”) before F 1,797 square meters and G 418 square meters prior to July 7, 1987, in Jeju Special Metropolitan City, the ownership of which was transferred to Plaintiff A prior to the division.
F. On October 13, 1989, the land category of the instant land was changed to the road category on October 14, 1993, when the ownership was transferred to the Plaintiff C on October 13, 1989.
B. On December 13, 1983, the ownership of the Plaintiff B was divided into 3,678 square meters before J before the division and 1,805 square meters before K prior to K’s division into 1,805 square meters on July 7, 1987 (the land indicated in paragraph (2) of the attached Table No. 2; hereinafter “instant land”) and 653 square meters before M (the land indicated in paragraph (3) of the attached Table No. 3; hereinafter “instant land”). At the same time, the instant land category was changed to the road.
C. The location of the instant land (1) through (4) is the attached air operator and cadastral map indication 1, (2), (3), and (4). The Defendant occupied and managed each of the above land as a road since before the land category was changed to the road.
[Ground of recognition] The fact that there is no dispute, Gap's 1, 2, 3, 5, 6, 7 evidence, Eul's 1, 2, 3, 6, 7, and 8 (including virtual numbers), the purport of the whole statement, video, and oral argument
2. Determination
A. According to the above facts, unless there are special circumstances, the defendant is obliged to return unjust enrichment equivalent to the rent from the plaintiffs since he occupied and used the land in this case (1) through (4) without any legal grounds.
B. The first defendant's assertion regarding the defendant's assertion (1) through (4) of this case is prior to the plaintiffs' acquisition of ownership.