beta
Text
1. The judgment of the court of first instance is modified as follows.
The defendant shall pay to the plaintiff KRW 12,08,191 and KRW 3,349,672.
Reasons
1. Facts of recognition;
A. The Plaintiff is a corporation established under the Act on the Efficient Disposal of Non-Performing Assets, etc. of Financial Companies and the Establishment of Korea Asset Management Corporation, and was entrusted by the Republic of Korea with the management and disposal of Seodaemun-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government 4,58 square meters (hereinafter “instant land”) owned by the Republic of Korea pursuant to this Act and other relevant statutes.
B. From August 16, 1963, the Defendant occupied and used 140 square meters of the building site (hereinafter “instant site”) from C residing in an unauthorized building constructed on the instant land (hereinafter “instant unauthorized building”) around September 30, 1983, while residing in the instant unauthorized building from November 15, 1983.
C. Meanwhile, the Defendant’s amount of unjust enrichment equivalent to the rent from the occupation and use of the instant site is KRW 20,711,464 as stated in [Attachment Table 1] from April 1, 2006 to December 31, 2010, and KRW 12,08,191 as stated in [Attachment Table 2] from April 24, 2008 to December 31, 2010.
[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1 to 3, Eul evidence 1 to 3, and the purport of 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; and (c) barring any special circumstance, the Defendant is obligated to refund unjust enrichment of KRW 20,711,464 equivalent to the rent for the possession and use of the instant land from April 1, 2006 to December 31, 2010; and (b) whether the Defendant falls under the 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) the Defendant first priority, and Article 72(1)2 of the State Property Act, as the Plaintiff seeks.