beta
Text
1. The Defendant’s KRW 8,335,50 and the Plaintiff’s annual rate of KRW 5% from October 22, 2014 to May 26, 2015.
Reasons
1. Facts of recognition;
A. The Plaintiff completed the registration of ownership transfer as the Daegu District Court Branch Branch No. 64258, Oct. 4, 2001, regarding the land listed in the separate sheet (hereinafter “instant land”).
B. From March 2004 to May 31, 2012, the Defendant occupied and used the instant land owned by the Plaintiff by planting landscaping trees, etc. on the indication of drawings (i), (ii), (c), and (iv) 259 square meters of the instant land owned by the Plaintiff (hereinafter “the Defendant’s occupied portion”).
[Reasons for Recognition] Each entry and video of Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 16 (including each number), the result of the measurement and appraisal commission to the Director of the Korea Cadastral Construction Corporation of this Court, the purport of the whole pleadings
2. Determination
A. According to the above facts of recognition, the defendant is obligated to return unjust enrichment equivalent to the rent from the occupation and use of the part of the land owned by the defendant among the plaintiff's land to the plaintiff, barring special circumstances.
B. Furthermore, according to the result of the appraisal on the amount of unjust enrichment to be returned by the Defendant, the amount of rent for the part of the Defendant’s possession from October 1, 2004 to May 31, 2012, for which the Plaintiff seeks from October 1, 2004 to May 31, 2012, can be acknowledged as constituting 8,335,500.
Therefore, the Defendant is obliged to pay the amount of 8,335,500 won for unjust enrichment and the delay damages calculated at the rate of 5% per annum under the Civil Act from October 22, 2014 to May 26, 2015, which is the date of the judgment of this case, and the date of full payment from the next day to the date of full payment, by 20% per annum under the Act on Special Cases concerning Expedition, etc. of Legal Proceedings.
3. Conclusion, the plaintiff's claim is justified.