beta
Text
1. Of the judgment of the first instance court, the Plaintiff against the Defendant:
(a) KRW 18,436,643 and its corresponding amount shall be from December 9, 2014 to October 2016.
Reasons
1. Basic facts
A. On March 15, 1996, the Plaintiff, the Defendant, and C concluded a sales contract with D to purchase the nine parcels of land including the instant real estate in KRW 310,000,000, and thereafter, on May 16, 1996, the ownership transfer registration for the instant real estate was completed in the name of the Plaintiff, the Defendant, and C, respectively.
B. After that, the registration of ownership transfer was completed on January 24, 2003 with respect to the Plaintiff’s share 1/6 of the Plaintiff’s share 1/3 of the Plaintiff’s share, and the registration of ownership transfer was completed on February 3, 2006 with respect to the entire portion of C share 1/3, and the registration of ownership transfer was completed on February 3, 2006 with Plaintiff 3/6 shares, Defendant 2/6 shares, and E1/6 shares.
[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 19-1 through 5, Eul evidence 1 and 2, the purport of the whole pleadings
2. Determination on the cause of the claim
A. 1) A co-owner of a real estate may use and benefit from the entire land according to his/her share ratio, but the specific method of use and benefit cannot be exclusively occupied or used by one of the co-owners unless a majority of share ratio has been agreed among the co-owners. Thus, if a part of the co-owner exclusively occupies or uses a specific part, even if the specific part area is within the area equivalent to his/her share ratio, he/she shall be deemed to have the unjust enrichment corresponding to his/her share as to the other co-owners, although the specific part area is within the area equivalent to his/her share ratio, but the use and benefit from the part is within the extent of his/her share ratio. This is because all the co-owners have the right to use and benefit from the whole jointly owned property at the share ratio (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 200Da13948, Dec. 11, 201). The whole appraisal result of the Korea Land Information Corporation entrusted by the first instance court.