beta
Text
1. The plaintiff's appeal and the conjunctive claim added in the trial are all dismissed.
2. After an appeal is filed.
Reasons
1. The reasoning of the court’s explanation concerning this case is as follows: (a) the conjunctive claim added in the court of first instance added to the judgment of the court of first instance is stated in the corresponding part of the reasoning of the court of first instance, except for addition of the judgment under Paragraph (2) below; (b) thus, it is citing it as it is
2. Judgment on the conjunctive claim added at the trial
A. Even if an agreement between the Plaintiff and the Defendant on the distribution of profits is not acknowledged, the Plaintiff paid expenses for authorization and permission to develop the Defendant’s land, and the Defendant sold the land of this case, the value of which has increased by the Plaintiff’s efforts, at a reasonable price, thereby unfairly taking advantage of the benefit of KRW 173,849,661, which is the Plaintiff’s development costs.
Therefore, the Defendant is obligated to pay the Plaintiff the amount of KRW 173,849,661 equivalent to the above development costs as the repayment of beneficial costs or the return of unjust enrichment.
B. The entries and images of Gap evidence Nos. 19 through 25 alone, as alleged by the plaintiff, are insufficient to recognize that the plaintiff brought development costs into the plaintiff, increased the objective value of the land of this case, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge that the land of this case was returned to the defendant, the owner, as well as the increased value. Rather, in addition to the whole purport of the pleading in Eul evidence No. 5, the defendant sold the land of this case to the plaintiff on May 12, 2009, but on April 26, 2013, after cancelling the contract with the plaintiff, sold the land including the land of this case to the non-party M on an ordinary 1.35,50,000 won. Since the plaintiff was recognized as having engaged in development activities by itself in order to obtain profits from resale after purchasing the land of this case from the defendant, it is premised on the defendant's profits equivalent to the plaintiff's development costs.