beta
Text
1. The defendant shall be the plaintiff.
A. Annex 1 on the attached sheet indicating the attached sheet (a) of 2,022 square meters among the 2,022 square meters in Gyeongcheon-gun, Gyeongcheon-gun (a part block).
Reasons
1. Determination on the plaintiff's claim
A. On January 28, 2016, the Plaintiff filed a claim for the removal of the building and delivery of the land (hereinafter “instant land”). From around 2006, the Defendant is the owner who acquired approximately KRW 2,022 square meters of the instant land (hereinafter “instant land”); from around 2006, the Defendant did not have any dispute between the parties to the instant land and the entire land of KRW 393 square meters of the instant land (hereinafter “the instant land”), indicating the attached appraisal map on the ground of the block section (A) and the block section (a) and the block section (b) 81.8 square meters of the housing of approximately 81.8 square meters, the block section (b) and the block section (39, 37, 36, 34, 32, and 4 square meters of the instant land, or there is no dispute between the parties to the instant land and the entire land of the instant construction (hereinafter “the instant land”).
Therefore, the Defendant is obligated to remove the instant building to the Plaintiff and deliver the instant dispute land to the Plaintiff.
B. On January 28, 2016, the Plaintiff acquired the instant land on or around January 28, 2016, and the fact that the Defendant occupied the instant dispute land from around 2006 is as seen above. As such, the Defendant is obligated to return to the Plaintiff unjust enrichment equivalent to the rent from January 28, 2016, which the Plaintiff acquired the ownership of the instant land from January 28, 2016 to the completion date of delivery of the instant dispute land.
With respect to the amount of rent, while the plaintiff is claiming to calculate it as KRW 200,000 per month, there is no evidence to prove that it reaches KRW 200,000 per month.
However, prior to the Plaintiff’s acquisition of ownership, the Defendant paid KRW 56,00 per annum to the owner of the land of this case as rent. Thus, the fact that at least 56,00 per annum is the difference in the land of this case can be recognized.
As to the rent that occurred by June 29, 2018, the Plaintiff is the rent.