beta
Text
1. The part against the defendant in the judgment of the first instance shall be revoked;
2. The plaintiff's claim corresponding to the above revocation part.
Reasons
1. Facts of recognition;
A. The Seongbuk-gu Seoul (hereinafter referred to as the “Mamo land”) was originally owned by S. On June 26, 1936, the land was divided into C and the instant land. On July 10, 1936, after the transfer of ownership was made to K on July 14, 1936, the transfer of ownership was completed on July 14, 1936 to E on the ground of sale.
B. C The transfer registration of ownership was completed to F on March 13, 1939, and on October 23, 1940, the land was re-divided into C and G land, and the land category was changed to a site at the time of the said subdivision, and C was merged into H land on September 10, 1991.
C. The registration of ownership transfer was completed in the Plaintiff who inherited the above E on April 11, 2007 (the inheritance of the property as of January 14, 1964). The land of this case is being used as the only passage leading to I roads from the H land and G land partitioned and combined on the mother land.
The amount equivalent to the rent from November 2, 2009 to November 1, 2014 concerning the instant land is KRW 24,882,00, and the amount equivalent to the monthly rent from July 28, 2015 is KRW 447,00.
[Ground of recognition] A without any dispute, entry of Gap evidence 1 and 2, each video of Gap evidence 4 and 5 (including paper numbers; hereinafter the same shall apply), the result of the appraisal of rent to the appraiser J of this court, the purport of the whole pleadings
2. According to the above facts of determination as to the cause of the claim, the defendant has occupied the land of this case as a road management agency, such as the use of the land to the general public for traffic, etc. Accordingly, the defendant has gained profit equivalent to the rent for the land of this case, and thereby has caused damages equivalent to the same amount to the plaintiff who is the owner of the land of this case.
Therefore, barring special circumstances, the defendant is obligated to return unjust enrichment from November 2, 2009, as requested by the plaintiff.
3. Judgment on the defendant's defense
A. Whether the acquisition by prescription has been completed or not shall continue to own the instant land for at least 20 years.