beta
Text
1. The defendant
(a) Of the 1,693 square meters of paddy field C, Jeonnam-gun, the annexed drawings 1, 2, 3, 4 and 1, respectively.
Reasons
1. Facts of recognition;
A. On November 13, 2014, the Plaintiff paid the sales price in the D Voluntary Auction Procedure for the Gwangju District Court, and purchased the 1,693m2 (hereinafter “instant land”). On November 18, 2014, the Plaintiff purchased the 1,693m2 (hereinafter “instant land”). As a result, on the instant land, the ownership transfer registration was completed in the Plaintiff’s future on November 18, 2014.
B. On the instant land around 199, the Defendant newly constructed a map indication 5, 6, 7, 8, 8, 16.5 square meters on the instant land (hereinafter referred to as the “instant building”) in order to each point of Annex 1, 2, 3, 4, 1, and 1, connected on the instant land, such as a drawing indication 1, 5, 6.1 square meters on the part of the building, 5, and 16.5 square meters on the part of the building.
C. Of the instant land, the monthly rent is KRW 40,000 at the time of the closing of the instant argument as to the part of the site of the instant building among the instant land.
[Ground of recognition] A without dispute, entry of Gap evidence No. 4, purport of whole pleadings
2. According to the above facts finding as to the cause of the claim, the Defendant is obligated to remove the instant building and deliver the instant land to the Plaintiff, the owner of the instant land, barring any special circumstance, as it owned the instant building and occupied the instant land, and return unjust enrichment equivalent to the rent calculated at the rate of KRW 40,000 per month from November 13, 2014 to the completion date of delivery of the instant land.
The plaintiff sought a return of unjust enrichment equivalent to the rent calculated at the rate of 64,700 won per month. However, there is no evidence to prove that the above-mentioned monthly rent exceeds the reasonable rate of 40,000 won. Thus, the plaintiff's claim for return of unjust enrichment exceeding the above recognized range is without merit.
3. Judgment on the defendant's defense
A. The defendant defenses to the effect that the land of this case has legal superficies.