beta
Text
1. The defendant,
A. 1, 4,986,840 won and 15% per annum from August 13, 2016 to the date of full payment to Plaintiff A.
Reasons
1. Determination as to Plaintiff A’s claim
A. 1) The Plaintiff: (a) was donated on January 4, 1990 by Nonparty E the “land No. 1 (hereinafter “the instant land”) to the 26m2 of the Jeonbuk-gun, North Jeju-gun, and completed the registration of ownership transfer at that time; (b) the Defendant has long been incorporating the instant land No. 1 into a two-lane road (road name: F) and is occupying and using it.
3) The rent for the land of this case from November 4, 2010 to July 31, 2016 is the sum of KRW 4,986,840, and the monthly rent for the land of this case around July 2016 is KRW 73,840. [Grounds for recognition] There is no dispute over the facts, Gap evidence 1, 3 (including land numbers, Eul evidence 1 and 2, each statement of evidence, the result of appraisal by G appraiser, the purport of the whole pleadings, and the purport of the whole pleadings.
B. According to the facts found above, the defendant occupied and used the land in this case as a road, thereby gaining profit equivalent to the rent, and thereby causing damage to the plaintiff A. Since August 1, 2016, it is reasonable to confirm the monthly rent of the land in this case as KRW 73,840. Thus, barring any special circumstance, the defendant is obligated to return the amount equivalent to the rent of the land in this case from November 4, 2010 to July 31, 2016 to the plaintiff 4,986,840 won, and the amount equivalent to the rent of the land in this case, from August 10, 2016 to the date of delivery of a copy of the application for change of claim and cause of claim as of August 10, 2016, calculated at the annual rate of 15% as stipulated by the Act on Special Cases concerning the Promotion, etc. of Legal Proceedings from August 13, 2016 to the date of full payment, to the loss of the plaintiff's ownership or the land in this case.
In this regard, the defendant asserts that since the non-party E, the former owner of the land of this case, renounced his exclusive right to use and benefit from the land of this case, the plaintiff's right to claim restitution of unjust enrichment has ceased to exist.