부당이득금
1. The defendant's appeal is dismissed.
2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Defendant.
The purport of the claim and the appeal shall be 1.
1. The reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance citing the reasoning of the judgment is as stated in the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance, except that the following 2.3 is added to the same as that of the judgment of the court of first instance, and the following 3.3. Thus, it is cited as it is in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.
2. The addition;
F. N. F. 9 filed a claim against the Defendant for the return of unjust enrichment equivalent to the rent that the Defendant received by the Seoul Eastern District Court 2018Ga group 104826, which was the Seoul Eastern District Court. On June 26, 2019, the above court rendered a judgment accepting all the above claims, and the Defendant appealed as the court 2019Na26986, but the appeal was dismissed on June 10, 2020, and the above judgment became final and conclusive on July 3, 2020.
3. Parts:
A. 3rd page 7 of the judgment of the first instance, “Seoul East Eastern District Court 2016 Gohap 1067577” was added to “Seoul East Eastern District Court 2016 Gohap 106757 and 2017 Gohap 103564 (merger).”
B. On the 3th page 13 of the judgment of the first instance, the 13th page “Seoul High Court 2018Na 2007465” was added to “Seoul High Court 2018Na 2018Na 2007465, 2018Na 2007472 (Joint)”.
(c)
No. 4 of the judgment of the court of first instance [founded grounds for recognition] "7 No. 1" shall be raised "8 evidence."
(d)
Section 6 1 of the judgment of the court of first instance is written in the following manner:
1) The defendant asserts that the building of this case is owned solely by the defendant, but it is merely entrusted to the deceased with some of the above buildings for the purpose of tax saving, etc., and the deceased was not the actual owner of some of the above buildings, and thus, the deceased did not bear the duty of return of unjust profits against the plaintiffs, who are the inheritance of the deceased.
According to the evidence evidence No. 7-1 to 10, No. 7-1 to No. 2 and No. 3, Defendant 1 is limited to the lessor column under the contract at the time when the lease contract was concluded with respect to each of the buildings of this case.