beta
Text
1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.
2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Plaintiff.
The purport of the claim and appeal is the purport of the appeal.
Reasons
1. The reasoning for the court’s explanation as to this part is as follows: (a) except where the court stated that “No. 19, 2013, Apr. 19, 2013” was “No. 2013, Apr. 22, 2013,” the corresponding part of the reasoning for the judgment of the first instance is identical to that of the judgment; and (b) thus, the same shall be cited pursuant to Article 8(2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and the main sentence
2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful
A. The Plaintiff’s primary claim is asserted (1) The Plaintiff paid the instant reimbursement amount corresponding to unjust enrichment from July 16, 2005 to January 31, 2012 in accordance with the Defendant’s purport of the claim in the relevant civil lawsuit. The Defendant received reimbursement from the Plaintiff in the form of unjust enrichment for the said period of compensation.
Therefore, the part corresponding to the indemnity during the period from July 16, 2005 to January 31, 2012, which was claimed by the Defendant as a civil litigation related to the pertinent disposition, shall be deemed to have ceased to exist with the payment of the instant reimbursement. Therefore, the part corresponding to the indemnity for the period from July 16, 2005 to January 31, 2012, among the disposition of this case, the indemnity for the period from January 16, 2005 to January 31, 2012, which was imposed on the person who is not liable for the payment of indemnity, shall be null and void
(2) Preliminary claim (1) Even if the Defendant violated the principle of trust protection has dual rights to exercise the Plaintiff’s claim for return of unjust enrichment against unauthorized possession and to impose indemnity, if one of the two rights is selected and exercised by a state with public authority, the remaining rights should not be exercised. Therefore, even if the Defendant already collected rent equivalent to the amount of unjust enrichment under the State Property Act through related civil litigation, it is reasonable for the Plaintiff to again notify the same period of imposition as indemnity.