beta
Text
1. The defendant,
(a) Plaintiff A, KRW 18,297,345, and its related amount, 5% per annum from April 18, 2017 to October 5, 2018, and 5% per annum.
Reasons
1. Basic facts
A. On October 14, 1965, the I, 322 E, which was owned by the network H, was divided into: I, 18, E, 185 and JJ 119; the network K acquired the E, 185 square meters from April 22, 1966.
E is divided into E large 136 and L large 49 on February 25, 1971, and after division, the E large 136 category was changed into a road, and it was incorporated into the Maducheon-si, 1972.
Since then, the E-road 136 square meters was divided into 344 square meters and 106 square meters on April 20, 1976, and among which the F road 106 square meters was subdivided into 106 square meters on March 4, 1994.
(hereinafter in sequence, “instant land”, “this case’s land”, “this case’s land”, and “the instant land”, and “each of the instant land” in the common sense.
On October 21, 1998, the deceased on October 21, 1998, the Plaintiff’s spouse acquired shares of 3/11 of each of the instant lands, children N,O, Plaintiff B (P prior to the acquisition of U.S. nationality), and Q Q 2/11 of shares.
Of the network K children, the rest N, R, and S are proceeding against the defendant as a separate suit (this Court 2018 Ghana 111304).
C. The defendant uses each of the lands of this case as a road and occupies and manages them.
[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1, 2, 3, 6 and Eul evidence Nos. 1, 2, 3, 4, 6, 7, 9 and the purport of the whole pleadings
2. Determination:
A. The Plaintiffs asserting that, from April 22, 1966, the Sil K acquired ownership of each of the instant lands, the Defendant, as a result of the incorporation of each of the instant lands into MM road and illegally occupied and used it, filed a claim for the return of unjust enrichment equivalent to the rent for each of the instant lands from March 16, 2012.
Since the Defendant recognized the fact that the land of this case was occupied and managed during the period for which the Plaintiffs sought restitution of unjust enrichment, the Defendant is obligated to return unjust enrichment equivalent to the rent for each land of this case to the Plaintiffs.
2. The defendant