beta
Text
1. The Defendant is the Plaintiff with respect to the amount of KRW 33,882,00 and the amount of KRW 519 square meters from February 6, 2017.
Reasons
1. The following facts are not disputed between the parties, or can be acknowledged in full view of the purport of the entire pleadings in Gap evidence Nos. 1 and 2.
On July 2, 2013, the Plaintiff purchased 1/2 shares of 3,00,000 square meters (hereinafter “instant land”). Of the instant land, the remainder of 1/2 shares among the instant land is owned by the Defendant.
B. The Defendant owned the instant land on the instant land and independently occupied and used the instant land as indicated in the annexed drawing. Of the annexed drawings, the portion of (a) of the annexed drawing is 10 square meters in container; (b) the portion of (c) is 15 square meters in warehouse; (c) the portion of (c) is 20 square meters in restaurant (the respective buildings are unregistered), and (d) the portion is 40.36 square meters in the bridge 15.96 square meters in the mentment block structure and the mentment block block structure, which is an affiliated building.
C. From July 2, 2013 to February 5, 2017, 1/2 of the rent for the period from July 2, 2013 to February 5, 2017 is KRW 33,882,00, and 1/2 of the rent for the instant land thereafter is KRW 743,50 per month.
2. Determination as to the cause of action
A. A co-owner of the Defendant’s unjust enrichment can use and benefit from the entire land according to the share ratio of each co-owner. However, as long as a majority of shares is agreed on the specific method of use and benefit-making among co-owners, the entire land cannot be occupied and used exclusively. Thus, if a part of the co-owner exclusively occupies and uses the entire land, he/she shall be deemed to have made unjust enrichment corresponding to his/her share in the other co-owners, even if the share of the other co-owners exists, but the use and benefit-making therefrom
(See Supreme Court Decision 200Da17803 delivered on October 11, 2002). In light of the above legal principles, the Defendant’s share of the Plaintiff among the amount equivalent to the rent of 1/2 shares since the Plaintiff acquired ownership of the land of this case from the Plaintiff.