Background
A property development company sued a landowner (our client), claiming that "your structure encroaches on about 3.7 square meters of our land," and demanding ▲ delivery of the encroached portion and ▲ unjust enrichment equal to rent of KRW 1 million per month, running from several years earlier until delivery was completed. Changchun represented our client, the defendant.
The Issue — Must Even a "Small Area" Be Handed Over?
The area claimed was not large — about 3.7 square meters (about 4.5 square meters on expert survey) — but if delivery of the land and long-running monthly rent were both allowed, the burden would keep accumulating. The key questions were ① whether our client could be regarded as possessing the plaintiff's land without title, and ② whether the delivery and unjust enrichment claims could be granted.
How Changchun Helped
Changchun (attorneys Jaesun Yoon and Sieun Kim) closely analyzed survey and site records together with the history of the boundary and of possession, and established that the plaintiff's delivery and unjust enrichment claims could not be recognized. The court of first instance rejected the plaintiff's claims, and although the plaintiff appealed, the appellate court dismissed the appeal, holding that the first instance findings and reasoning were sound.
Outcome
Acting for our client (the defendant), Changchun prevailed both at first instance and on appeal (claims dismissed; appeal dismissed).
Even a "small area" is far from a small matter once delivery of land and long-running unjust enrichment are bound up in it. The case shows that establishing the facts of the boundary and of possession precisely is the heart of the defense. (Outcomes may differ depending on the facts of each matter.)