beta
Text
1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.
2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.
Reasons
1. Basic facts
A. In around 1975, Seoul Special Metropolitan City, when implementing a land readjustment project of the Seoul Seoul District, the land owned D, Gangnam-gu Seoul E and F 2 lots (hereinafter referred to as “previous land”) was incorporated into the said project district.
B. D, around April 1975, combine the previous land into one parcel, and then filed an application for change of land scheduled for replotting to the effect that the previous land is divided into the land of Gangnam-gu Seoul, G, H, I, F, J, K, L, M, and N10 parcels, and around May 1975, Seoul Special Metropolitan City rendered a disposition of change of land scheduled for replotting to the previous land, such as the drawing in the attached sheet.
C. D sold all the remaining lands divided from the previous lands except the above E land to others, and completed the registration of ownership transfer.
Upon completion of a land readjustment project in the Seoul District on April 10, 1982, the Seoul Metropolitan Government confirmed the above E land to be substituted by 323.3 square meters on roads B in Gangnam-gu, Seoul (hereinafter the above E land and the above E land collectively referred to as the “instant land”), and the instant land has been used as a passage for neighboring land and residents since that time.
E. D sold the instant land to O on February 19, 2010, and completed the registration of ownership transfer on February 26, 2010, and thereafter, the Plaintiff was awarded the instant land through the auction procedure on May 2, 2012 and completed the registration of ownership transfer on May 17, 2012.
[Reasons for Recognition] Unsatisfy, Gap evidence 1, 2, Eul evidence 1 to 4 (including branch numbers), the purport of the whole pleadings
2. Summary of the parties' arguments;
A. Since the Defendant occupied the instant land owned by the Plaintiff without permission and used it as a road, the Defendant is obligated to refund the amount equivalent to the rent of the instant land to the Plaintiff as unjust enrichment.
B. D, the former owner of the instant land, renounced his exclusive right to use and benefit from the instant land, and the Plaintiff knew of this.