beta
Text
1. The judgment of the first instance court, including the Plaintiff’s claim expanded in the trial room, shall be modified as follows.
The defendant.
Reasons
1. Facts of recognition;
A. The Plaintiff, a corporation established pursuant to the Act on the Efficient Disposal of Non-Performing Assets, etc. of Financial Companies and the Establishment of Korea Asset Management Corporation, was entrusted by the Republic of Korea with the management and disposal, etc. of Seodaemun-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government B large 4,58 square meters (hereinafter “instant land”).
B. On June 30, 2004, the Defendant purchased a building from C residing in an unauthorized building constructed on the instant land (hereinafter “the instant unauthorized building”) and occupied and used the building site of 74 square meters (hereinafter “the instant site”) from around that time while residing in the instant unauthorized building.
C. Meanwhile, the Defendant’s amount of unjust enrichment equivalent to the rent from the occupation and use of the instant site is KRW 18,095,860 as stated in [Attachment Table 1]’s statement from April 1, 2006 to December 31, 2013, and KRW 15,56,070 as stated in [Attachment Table 2]’s statement from June 13, 2007 to December 31, 2013.
[Reasons for Recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap's statements in Gap's 1 to 8, 10 to 12, and the purport of the whole pleadings
2. Determination
A. According to the above facts, the Defendant: (a) owned the instant land on the instant land without any legal ground and occupied and used the instant land without permission; and (b) incurred loss to the Plaintiff, who is the right holder to manage and dispose of the instant land; (c) barring any special circumstance, the Defendant is obligated to refund unjust enrichment of KRW 18,095,860 equivalent to the rent for the possession and use of the instant building site from April 1, 2006 to December 31, 2013; and (d) whether the Defendant constitutes grounds for exception to the State Property Act (i) whether the instant land falls under the grounds for exception to the State Property Act (i) whether the Defendant first becomes liable to compensate the Plaintiff for unjust enrichment of KRW 18,095,860 equivalent to the rent for the possession and use of the instant building site, as claimed by the Plaintiff.