beta
Text
1. The defendant shall be the plaintiff.
(a) remove the buildings listed in Annex 2;
(b) Appendix 1.
Reasons
1. The fact that the land listed in paragraph 1 of the attached list owned by the Plaintiff (hereinafter “instant land”) is used as the site of the building listed in paragraph 2 of the attached list owned by the Defendant (hereinafter “instant building”) is not a dispute between the parties.
2. Determination
A. Since the land which is the site of a building and a building obligated to remove the building is occupied by the owner of the building, the defendant is obligated to remove the building and deliver the land to the plaintiff according to the plaintiff's claim for exclusion of disturbance based on the plaintiff's ownership.
B. Furthermore, the Defendant is obligated to return unjust enrichment from the possession and use of the instant land to the Plaintiff. The amount of unjust enrichment from the possession and use of the instant land is the amount equivalent to the rent of the relevant real estate.
According to the court’s commission of appraisal by the Korea Appraisal Board, it can be acknowledged that the pertinent land is the appropriate difference from November 19, 2014 to November 18, 2015, and that 433,600 won from November 19, 2015 to November 18, 2016, and that the reasonable rent thereafter is the same as that from November 19, 2015 to November 18, 2016.
Therefore, the Defendant is obligated to return to the Plaintiff unjust enrichment calculated by the percentage of the amount of KRW 428,180 corresponding to the unjust enrichment from November 19, 2014 to November 18, 2015, and the amount of KRW 36,133 (=43,600 ± 12 and less than KRW) monthly from November 19, 2015 to November 19, 2015.
(A) The Plaintiff filed a claim for return of unjust enrichment calculated on November 19, 2014 at the rate of KRW 200,000 per month, but the Plaintiff’s claim exceeding the above recognition scope is not accepted in light of the aforementioned reasonable rent amount). 3. As such, the Plaintiff’s claim is reasonable within the above recognition scope, and the remainder is dismissed as there is no justifiable reason. It is so decided as per Disposition.