beta
Text
1. The Defendant’s KRW 13,113,600 as well as the annual rate of KRW 5% from September 3, 2013 to July 8, 2014, and the next day.
Reasons
1. Basic facts
A. Seoul Songpa-gu Seoul is owned by the Republic of Korea. The Plaintiff is an institution entrusted with the management and disposal of the instant land pursuant to Article 26(1)8 of the Act and Article 42(1) of the State Property Act and Article 38(1) of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act, which is established under the Act on the Efficient Disposal of Non-Performing Assets, etc. of Financial Institutions and the Establishment of Korea Asset Management Corporation.
B. From January 1, 2007 to December 31, 2009, the Defendant occupied 25.6 square meters of the above land without permission (hereinafter “instant land”) and operated it as a play ground in which children’s play equipment was installed.
C. According to the State Property Act, the calculation of the calculated rent on the instant land is KRW 13,113,600 (=6,259,200 for the year 2007 and KRW 6,259,200 for the year 2008 and KRW 5,952,00 for the year 209).
[Ground of recognition] Unsatisfy, entry of Gap evidence 1, purport of whole pleadings
2. Determination
A. According to the facts of recognition as above, the Defendant: (a) occupied and used the instant land owned by the Republic of Korea without any legal cause; (b) obtained profit equivalent to the rent and thereby inflicted damage on the Republic of Korea; and (c) on the other hand, the Plaintiff was entrusted by the Minister of Strategy and Finance, the Office of General Administration, pursuant to Article 42(1) of the State Property Act and Article 38(3) of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act, with respect to the management and disposal of the instant land, which is State-owned property; and (c) within the entrusted scope, the instant claim for restitution of unjust enrichment also includes the right to collect unjust enrichment (see Article 26(1)10 of the Act on the Efficient Disposal of Non-Performing Assets, etc. of Financial Companies and the Establishment of Korea Asset Management Corporation). Thus, the Defendant is obligated to refund to the Plaintiff the amount equivalent to unjust enrichment from January 1, 2007 to December 31, 2009
The Plaintiff sought unjust enrichment against the Defendant from January 1, 2010 to December 31, 2012, but is also seeking unjust enrichment.