beta
Text
1. The defendant shall be the plaintiff.
(a) KRW 4,821,960 as well as 15% per annum from December 20, 2018 to May 31, 2019; and
Reasons
1. Determination on the cause of the claim
A. Basic facts 1) On October 2, 2008, the Plaintiff: (a) on October 2, 2008, Seoyang-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government C large 281m2 (hereinafter “instant land”).
2) On the instant land, Nonparty D owned a building listed in the separate sheet (hereinafter “instant building”) on the instant land, and on December 11, 2008, the Plaintiff filed a lawsuit against D seeking restitution of unjust enrichment regarding the use of the instant land (this Court Decision 2008Gadan49120) against D, and on April 25, 2009, the monthly rent for the instant land was appraised as KRW 876,720 as of April 25, 200.
3) Upon receiving a successful bid of the instant building through an auction, the Defendant paid all the proceeds from the sale on June 22, 2018, and acquired ownership by acquiring ownership. [Grounds for recognition] The fact that there is no dispute, and each entry in the evidence A Nos. 1 through 6 (including a serial number, the purport of the entire pleadings).
B. In light of social norms, since a building cannot exist regardless of its site, the land which became the site for the building is occupied by the owner of the building, and in this case, the owner of the building does not actually occupy the building or its site.
Even if the land is occupied for the ownership of the building, it should be viewed that the land is occupied.
(2) According to the reasoning of the judgment below, the court below erred by misapprehending the legal principles as to unjust enrichment on the land of this case, and thereby exceeding the bounds of the legal principles as to unjust enrichment on the land of this case, and thereby exceeding the bounds of the principle of free evaluation of evidence, as otherwise alleged in the ground of appeal. It did not err by misapprehending the legal principles as to unjust enrichment on the land of this case, as otherwise alleged in the ground of appeal.
Furthermore, with respect to the scope of unjust enrichment to be returned by the defendant, the amount of profit from the possession and use of the real estate in ordinary cases shall be the amount equivalent to the rent of the real estate.