Whether to return unjust enrichment or not

The plaintiff cannot be deemed to have acquired ownership of the land of this case, and the plaintiff's assertion merely is a seller's creditor without merit.

1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

The defendant held that the defendant shall pay to the plaintiff 28,654,940 won with 20% interest per annum from the day after the delivery of a copy of the complaint of this case to the day of full payment.

1. Basic facts

A. “Before the division, ○○○○-dong 120 square meters, ○○-dong 120 square meters (hereinafter “land prior to the division”), was owned by ○○○-dong 120 square meters. The said ○○○-dong 120 square meters, and the said ○○○-dong 120 square meters did not pay national taxes, and the Korea Asset Management Corporation (Korean Asset Management Corporation) entrusted the public auction procedure on the said land.” or the Korea Asset Management Corporation notified the Plaintiff of the sale price.

"다. 그 후 분할 전 토지는 2000. 10. 31. ○○시 ○○구 ○○동 120 답 24㎡, 같은동 답 120-4 16㎡(이하,이 사건 토지들'이라고 한다)로 분할되었다",라. 한편, 이 사건 토지들은 ◎◎◎◎택지지구에 편입되어 △△△△공사는 2005. 6.경 위 토지들을 수용하였고, 그 수용보상금 28,674,000원을 이 법원 2005 금 제2495호로 공탁하였다.

E. On September 16, 2005, 2005, in the dividend procedure of this court No. 2005taga964, 28.654.940 won out of the above confinement compensation was distributed to the Defendant, who is the seizure authority of this court.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1, Gap evidence 2-1, Eul evidence 2-2, Gap evidence 3 and 4, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The assertion and judgment

The plaintiff is the cause of the claim of this case, and since the plaintiff acquired the ownership of the above land by making full payment of the sale price of the land before division, the right to receive compensation for expropriation of the land of this case exists, the defendant's partial payment of compensation for expropriation constitutes unjust enrichment and thus, the defendant is obligated to return it.

Therefore, the statement of evidence Nos. 1 and 5 alone is insufficient to recognize that the plaintiff paid in full the sale price of the land before the division, and there is no evidence to acknowledge this. In addition, even if the plaintiff paid in full the sale price, there is no assertion and proof as to the fact that the plaintiff acquired the qualification certificate for acquisition of farmland, and there is no evidence to prove that the plaintiff acquired the qualification certificate for acquisition of farmland. The sale price alone cannot be deemed to have acquired the ownership of the above land in full, but it is nothing more than the creditor against the seller, and therefore, the plaintiff'

3. Conclusion

Thus, the plaintiff's claim of this case is dismissed as it is without merit.