logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 수원지방법원 2015.06.02 2014가단63885
건물철거 등
Text

1. The Defendant shall own the Plaintiff’s ownership of the land indicated in the attached Table 1 from November 1, 2014 and from 1, 241,856.

Reasons

Comprehensively taking account of the entries in Gap's unjust enrichment on the ground of claim and the purport of the entire pleadings, it is recognized that the plaintiff acquired the ownership of the land of this case in the auction procedure on July 24, 2009, and the defendant acquired the ownership of the land of this case on August 30, 2012, in the real estate auction procedure (Seoul District Court Youngdong Branch Support C), the building of this case constructed on the ground of this case in the real estate auction procedure on August 30, 2012, and other than the presentation attached to the building of this case, as well as cement block structure, reticulate 15.2 square meters (referring to the evidence No. 4-2 of the evidence No. 4-2 of the evidence No. 1 of this case).

According to the above facts, the Defendant is obligated to return to the Plaintiff the amount equivalent to the rent that the Defendant acquired by occupying and using a portion of the instant land 39.2m2m2 from September 1, 2012, which was sought by the Plaintiff, from the date of loss of the Plaintiff’s ownership or from the date of loss of the Defendant’s ownership of the instant building.

Furthermore, the Plaintiff asserts that the Defendant owned the instant building and occupied and used the entire land of 163 square meters.

In light of the above evidence and Gap evidence No. 5, the land of this case is a gas station site, and the building of this case is recognized as having been a oil sales office, and the defendant did not use the building of this case as stated in the pleading. Meanwhile, the facts acknowledged earlier are insufficient to deem that the defendant owned the building of this case and used the whole land of this case, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it. Thus, the plaintiff's above assertion is without merit.

According to the result of appraisal commission with respect to appraiser D within the scope of unjust enrichment, the rent for the instant land from September 1, 2012 to October 31, 2014 is the aggregate of 5,163,840 grounds, and the instant land from November 1, 2014 to the present date.

arrow