beta
Text
1. The defendant shall be the plaintiff.
(a) KRW 32,075,000 and KRW 10,000 among them shall be from July 25, 2018; and KRW 22,075,000.
Reasons
1. Basic facts
A. The Defendant owned 7/9 shares of each of the real estate listed in the separate sheet from November 24, 2008 (hereinafter collectively referred to as “each of the instant real estate”), and owned 7/9 shares of each of the real estate listed in the separate sheet from November 24, 2008 (hereinafter referred to as “instant building”). The Plaintiff completed the registration of transfer of ownership of each of the instant real estate on January 18, 2010 for 2/9 shares of each of the said real estate on January 5, 2010.
B. From January 18, 2010, the Defendant exclusively occupied, directly or indirectly, and uses and benefits from each of the instant real estate without consultation with the Plaintiff.
[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1-1 and 2, the purport of the whole pleadings
2. The assertion and judgment
A. 1) According to the above facts, a majority of co-owners of co-ownership can independently determine matters concerning the management method of co-ownership, even though there was no agreement with other co-owners on the method of management of co-ownership. Thus, the method of management of the co-ownership can exclusively use and profit from the specific part of the co-ownership. However, the share arising therefrom is generated, and the minority right holders suffering losses due to the use and profit-making of the specific part are obliged to return unjust enrichment equivalent to the amount of rent corresponding to the share (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2002Da9738, May 14, 2002).
Therefore, the plaintiff who is a minority right holder and did not use or make profit from each of the above real estate shall return unjust enrichment equivalent to the amount of the rent corresponding to the above shares.
With regard to the scope of return of unjust enrichment, according to the results of appraisal by appraiser C, the plaintiff is about each real estate of this case.