beta
Text
1. The plaintiff's appeal and the additional selective claims filed by this court are all dismissed.
2. After an appeal is filed.
Reasons
The reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance cited this case is as stated in the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance, except for an additional determination as to the plaintiff's claim for return of unjust enrichment as set forth in the following paragraph (2). Thus, this is acceptable as it is in accordance with the main sentence of Article
The plaintiff's assertion that the plaintiff's additional judgment C entered into the E Apartment Construction Work (hereinafter referred to as the "Housing Construction Work") on the land of this case and contracted to F part of the land construction work with N. The plaintiff was awarded a subcontract for undergroundter destruction work, provisional facility installation work, etc. from F on May 7, 2005.
(2) On March 9, 2012, when the Defendant acquired ownership of the land of this case, the Plaintiff leased and constructed the instant land from G as part of the subcontracted project. The sn beam beamline of this case was installed.
The Defendant acquired the ownership of the instant land from March 9, 2012 to April 16, 2016, from March 16, 2016, by occupying and using the sn beam beam of the instant case leased by the Plaintiff without any legal cause, and making the Plaintiff continue to conduct an underground construction site without collapse, and thereby obtaining profits equivalent to KRW 5,429,80 of the monthly rent on the sn beam beam beam of the instant case from March 9, 2016 to the time before selling the instant land to H. The Plaintiff suffered losses equivalent to the amount of the rent liability against the Plaintiff. As such, the Plaintiff has the claim for return of unjust enrichment equivalent to the said money against the Defendant, and the said claim is in an incidental joint and several relationship with G’s claim for return of unjust enrichment against the Defendant who is the owner of the sn beam sn
Therefore, the Defendant is obligated to return to the Plaintiff, the lessee of the sn beam beam of this case, the amount of KRW 266,060,200 (=5,429,800 x 49 months) as unjust enrichment.
Judgment
The plaintiff's above assertion is from G, the sn beam beam of this case around 2005.