beta
Text
1. The Defendant: (a) KRW 177,845,950 to Plaintiff A; (b) KRW 30,292,350 to Plaintiff B; and (c) KRW 14,878,005 to Plaintiff C and each of the said money.
Reasons
1. Basic facts
A. On March 23, 1978, the Defendant divided the Plaintiff’s land acquisition and the Defendant’s use, etc. into 32,003 square meters of Pyeongtaek-si E-si and 27,403 square meters of forest land and 4,600 square meters of forest land on July 2, 2015 (the land above was divided into 27,403 square meters of forest land and 4,600 square meters of forest land on July 2, 2015; hereinafter the same shall apply) before the division into “land before the instant division”; the divided land of Pyeongtaek-si E-si and 27,403 square meters of forest land is divided into “one land”; the divided land of 27,600 square meters of forest and 27,00 square meters of forest and 4,600 square meters of land
(1) The land rent shall be free of charge for the purpose of owning buildings and structures for the purpose of laying down military posts, and the duration shall be from March 23, 1978 to 30 years (hereinafter “the superficies of this case”).
(2) On May 4, 1978, the Defendant issued the instant land to USFK as a site for G training place in accordance with the Agreement under Article 4 of the Mutual Defense Treaty between the Republic of Korea and the United States of America, regarding Facilities and Areas and the Status of United States Armed Forces in the Republic of Korea on April 11, 1978.
3) Plaintiff A completed the registration of ownership transfer for the land prior to the instant partition, which was received on November 6, 1984 by Suwon District Court No. 36196, Dec. 30, 1974, with respect to the land prior to the instant partition. 4) Although the duration of superficies of the instant case terminated on March 22, 2008, there was no agreement between Plaintiff A and the Defendant for the re-establishment of superficies, but even after the said duration expired, the usfk used the land prior to the instant partition as the site for G training site.
B. Plaintiff A’s claim for return of unjust enrichment against the Defendant in the first instance trial (A) is reasonable as the difference arising from the possession and use of the instant land during the period from May 1, 2009 to July 31, 2014, the Seoul Central District Court 2014Gahap532922 (hereinafter “first instance trial”) against the Defendant.