beta
Text
1. The defendant shall pay KRW 2,168,00 to the plaintiff.
2. Of the litigation costs, one-half of the appraisal costs shall be the Plaintiff, and the remainder.
Reasons
1. Facts of recognition;
A. On September 4, 2014, the Plaintiff purchased the ownership through a voluntary auction procedure and completed the registration of ownership transfer as the receipt of No. 8665 on September 29, 2014, by acquiring the land of this case (hereinafter “instant land”).
B. B. The Defendant, before the Plaintiff acquired ownership, installed a vinyl house on the ground and occupied all of the instant land on the ground, and removed the vinyl house on May 28, 2016 and handed over the land to the Plaintiff.
C. The rent for the period from September 29, 2014 to September 28, 2015 of the instant land is KRW 1,224,00, and the rent for the period from September 29, 2015 to May 28, 2016 is KRW 94,00.
[Reasons for Recognition] A without dispute, entry of Gap evidence Nos. 1-5, results of an appraisal commission against appraiser D, the purport of the whole pleadings
2. According to the above facts finding as to the cause of the claim, the defendant is obligated to return the land to the plaintiff, since the defendant occupied the land of this case without any legal ground and obtained unjust enrichment.
Furthermore, as to the amount of unjust enrichment to be returned by the Defendant, the amount of profit from the use of real estate in ordinary cases is equivalent to the rent for the real estate. The Defendant is obligated to pay the Plaintiff the sum of the rent for the Plaintiff from September 29, 2014 to May 28, 2016, which the Defendant delivered to the Plaintiff the instant land (= KRW 1,224,000, KRW 944,000), which is the sum of the rent for the Plaintiff from September 29, 2014 to May 28, 2016.
3. According to the conclusion, the plaintiff's claim is justified, and it is reasonable to see that one-half of the appraisal costs incurred by acts not necessary to increase or protect the plaintiff's rights, who is the winning party, and therefore, it is reasonable to see that the plaintiff's claim was made through a complaint at the rate of KRW 600,000 per annum for the whole owner of the land of this case.