1. The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Defendant.

Purport of claim and appeal

1...

1. The reasoning for this part of the judgment of the court of first instance is as follows, except for the addition of "3. Additional Judgment", the reasoning for this part of the judgment of the court of first instance is as stated in the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance. Thus, this part of the judgment is cited in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

2. Part of the decision of the court of first instance which has been written; and

subsection (1) shall be filled by the following:

The deceased on January 9, 2005, and the Plaintiff, the wife of the deceased C, on March 7, 2016, completed the registration of ownership transfer under the name of the Plaintiff on the ground of inheritance by consultation and division. The Plaintiff added No. 13-1 of the evidence No. 14 submitted by the Plaintiff to this court on March 7, 2016.

3. The Defendant asserts to the effect that even if the Plaintiff received inheritance of the instant land through an agreement on the division of inherited property, the claim for return of unjust enrichment on the instant land, as asserted by the Plaintiff, is a separate claim for return of unjust enrichment, and is not subject to the division of inherited property, since it is divided and succeeded to the co-inheritors according to the statutory share of inheritance at the time of the commencement of inheritance, the Plaintiff

The plaintiff sought a return of unjust enrichment on the land of this case from April 6, 201, which was after the commencement of the inheritance in this case. The division of inherited property has retroactive effect at the time of the commencement of the inheritance (main sentence of Article 1015 of the Civil Act). Since the negligence from inherited property does not exist at the time of the commencement of the inheritance, the plaintiff does not constitute inherited property, and the heir who acquired the ownership of inherited property after division of inherited property does not have the right to receive the negligence pursuant to Article 102 of the Civil Act (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 2002Da66731, Apr. 22, 2003; 2006Da83796, Jul. 26, 2007). According to the above legal principles, the plaintiff has the right to receive the negligence pursuant to the above legal principles.