beta
Text
1. The defendant
A. Of the 145 square meters in Daegu Jung-gu, Daegu-gu, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 5, 6, 15, and 10, each of the annexed drawings.
Reasons
1. Facts of recognition;
A. On March 10, 2005, the registration of ownership transfer was completed in the name of the Plaintiff on March 10, 2005 with respect to the land of 145 square meters in Daegu Jung-gu (hereinafter “instant land”).
B. On June 7, 1984, the registration of ownership transfer was completed in the name of the defendant on June 7, 1984 with respect to the land size of 76 square meters in Daegu-gu, Daegu-gu and its ground area and the 21.29 square meters in a single-story house adjacent to the instant land.
The actual status of the above house owned by the defendant is a block structure string roof house.
(hereinafter “instant housing”). C.
However, a part of the instant house is built by bed up part of the instant land, and the part of the bed part is 17 square meters in the ship which connects each point of 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 5, 6, 15, and 10 of the attached Form No. 10, 11, 12, 13, 14
(hereinafter referred to as the “land in dispute of this case”). 【Ground of recognition” has no dispute, entry and video of evidence Nos. 1-1, 2, 3, and 1-2 of this case, the result of the commission of surveying and appraisal to the Korea Land Information Corporation, the purport of the whole pleadings.
2. According to the facts of recognition as above, the defendant owned the house of this case and possessed the land of this case among the land of this case owned by the plaintiff, thereby gaining profit equivalent to the use profit of the land of this case and causing damages equivalent to the same amount to the plaintiff.
Therefore, barring special circumstances, the defendant is obligated to remove the house on the ground of the land in question to the plaintiff, deliver the land in question to the plaintiff, and return the amount equivalent to the profit from the use of the land in question as unjust enrichment.
We examine the scope of unjust enrichment to be returned.
In ordinary cases, the amount of profit from the possession and use of real estate is the amount equivalent to the rent of the real estate.
According to the result of the court’s commission of appraisal of appraiser E in this case, the sum of the rent from March 10, 2005 to November 16, 2015 is KRW 4,100,000, and the rent from November 16, 2015 constitutes KRW 34,000 per month.