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. Basic facts
A. The Defendant, as the owner of Pyeongtaek-si C-189 square meters (hereinafter “instant land”) against the Plaintiff, the Suwon District Court rendered a claim for restitution of unjust enrichment due to the removal and delivery of the Plaintiff’s building on the instant land (hereinafter “instant building”) and the occupation and use of the instant land as the owner of Pyeongtaek-si C-12390 square meters (hereinafter “instant land”).
On September 8, 2011, the above court accepted the defendant's claim for removal of the building and delivery of land under the plaintiff's customary law and rejected it. However, even if the legal superficies holder is a legal superficies, the court ordered the plaintiff to return unjust enrichment calculated by the ratio of KRW 232,920 to KRW 2,150,510, and KRW 232,920 from April 8, 201, as the plaintiff is obligated to pay rent to the land owner.
B. Accordingly, the Defendant appealed as Suwon District Court No. 201Na3370, Jul. 5, 2012. The said court rendered a judgment dismissing the Defendant’s appeal on the remainder of the building removal and delivery portion, and the said judgment became final and conclusive on July 26, 2012, as follows: “The Plaintiff shall pay to the Defendant the amount calculated by the ratio of KRW 331,000 per month from April 8, 201 to the date of loss of the Defendant’s ownership regarding the instant land or the end of the Plaintiff’s possession; and the remainder of the Defendant’s appeal was dismissed; and the said judgment was finalized on July 26, 2012.
(hereinafter referred to as the “instant judgment”). C.
The Plaintiff deposited 3,315,110 won on September 14, 201, and 1,164,600 won on November 28, 201, respectively, with a total of 33 times until March 5, 2015, the Plaintiff deposited the amount of unjust enrichment equivalent to the rent for which payment was ordered in the instant judgment. The Plaintiff is not a deposit office having jurisdiction over the Defendant’s domicile pursuant to the “Guidelines for Handling Deposit Cases in the Deposit Office other than the depository office under jurisdiction.”