1. As to KRW 24,452,743 and KRW 19,034,00 among them, the Defendant shall pay to the Plaintiff the year from January 22, 2018 to October 2, 2019.

Basic Facts

The Plaintiff acquired ownership by purchasing it on January 9, 2003 in the public sale procedure with respect to 8m2 and 47m2 (hereinafter referred to as the “Plaintiff’s land”) prior to Seoul Jung-gu.

F owned land adjacent to the Plaintiff’s land (hereinafter, Defendant’s land) but around that time, F constructed a multi-household house with a four-story size (hereinafter, Defendant’s building) on its ground and completed registration of ownership on May 9, 2003.

F on April 4, 2014, the F sold the Defendant’s land and building to the Defendant and completed the registration of ownership transfer on April 7, 2014.

After that, the registration of ownership transfer was completed on September 1, 2018 on the ground that the land of the plaintiff was expropriated as a road and that the consultation on public land was acquired in the Jung-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government.

Plaintiff

Among the lands, the boundary stone of the Defendant building is installed in the area of five square meters adjacent to the Defendant’s land, and the remainder is being used as a parking lot as of the date of closing argument in this case.

Plaintiff

The south side of the land and the East side are in contact with the road of about 8 meters wide, and if the land of the plaintiff is not a passage on the defendant's land, it shall not be allowed to do so on the road.

[Reasons for Recognition] A without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 2, 11, and 18 (including a provisional number), Eul evidence Nos. 6, Eul's appraisal result, appraiser H's appraisal result, the plaintiff who caused the plaintiff's claim for the return of unjust enrichment, the defendant's claim for the return of unjust enrichment by asserting that part of the plaintiff's land is the boundary of the defendant's building, and that the remainder is occupied and used as the parking lot of the defendant's building, the defendant's claim for the return of unjust enrichment by asserting that the remainder of the plaintiff's land is occupied and used as the parking lot of the defendant's building. The defendant cannot be deemed to exclusively occupy the plaintiff's land on the ground of the fact that the above boundary is installed, and even if not, it is only the fact that the above boundary is installed.