beta
Text
1.The judgment of the first instance shall be modified as follows:
The defendant, (1) 10,946,660 won and its related amount.
Reasons
1. The reasons why the court should explain are as stated in the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance, except for adding the defendant's additional arguments and judgments under Section 5, Section 12, among the reasons for the judgment of the court of first instance, and therefore, they are cited in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.
2. The defendant's additional assertion and judgment
A. Some of the claims asserted by the Defendant against the Defendant were extinguished by the extinctive prescription of five years in accordance with Article 82(2) of the Local Finance Act.
B. Article 82 of the Local Finance Act provides that the statute of limitations for a local government’s right to payment of money shall expire unless it is exercised within five years, except as otherwise provided for in other Acts with respect to the statute of limitations. The statute of limitations for a claim to return unjust enrichment against the Defendant, a local government, shall expire five years pursuant to the above Act. However, the statute of limitations for a claim to return unjust enrichment shall run from the time when the claim to return unjust enrichment was established, and it is apparent in the record that the Plaintiff’s claim to return unjust enrichment was filed on September 4, 2013. As such, the statute of limitations for a claim to return unjust enrichment against the Defendant from September 4, 2013, which was earlier than the fifth anniversary of the filing date of the instant lawsuit against the Defendant, from May 30, 2006 to September 3, 208.
Furthermore, according to the above appraisal results, since the rent of the part occupied by the defendant from September 4, 2008 to December 31, 2013 is 10,946,660 won per month and is 183,700 won per month from January 1, 2014, the defendant's claim against the plaintiff as to ① 10,946,660 won per annum from September 4, 2008 to December 31, 2013 and the plaintiff's claim against the plaintiff as to the existence and scope of the defendant's obligation is reasonable to dispute over the existence and scope of the obligation from February 4, 2014 to January 8, 2016.