소유권이전등록등
The judgment of the first instance court is modified as follows. A.
The Defendant-Counterclaim Plaintiff (Counterclaim Defendant) is different from the Plaintiff-Counterclaim Defendant.
subsection (b).
1. The reasoning of the court of first instance cited the judgment is as stated in the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance, except for dismissal or alteration as follows. Thus, it is acceptable in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.
2. On the 5th page of the judgment of the first instance, the main sentence is that “type of business” as set forth in the above 8th sentence is “project termination”; the following 3 lines are as follows: “If the Defendant pays the Plaintiff the amount of indemnity to the Defendant as “the amount of indemnity to the Defendant”; “If the Defendant pays the Plaintiff KRW 10 million out of the amount of indemnity to the Defendant after the completion of the business, the Plaintiff shall return it to the Defendant after the completion of the business; and if the Plaintiff pays the Defendant the amount of KRW 10 million to the Defendant, the Defendant shall return it to the Plaintiff after the completion of the business; and on the 8th page, “round July 2016” as “round July 2016.”
3. Article 6-2 (b) of the decision of the first instance on the amendment.
subsection (1) shall be amended as follows:
A person shall be appointed.
B. The Plaintiff asserts that, from June 11, 2016 following the termination date of the instant contract, the Defendant occupied and used the instant construction machinery without any legal cause, the Plaintiff is obligated to pay unjust enrichment at the rate of KRW 111,216,00 (= KRW 5,296,000 x 21 month) equivalent to the rent of the said construction machinery and KRW 5,296,000 from March 11, 2018 until the Defendant delivers the instant construction machinery to the Plaintiff from March 11, 2018.
In the instant contract, the Plaintiff established the instant construction machinery at the Defendant’s place of business, and registered the instant construction machinery under the joint name of the Plaintiff and the Defendant, and the Defendant determined to transfer the name of the instant construction machinery to the Plaintiff when resolving all obligations and civil and criminal issues after the completion of the business.
In addition, according to the statement No. 2 of this case, it is recognized that the construction machinery of this case was removed by the plaintiff at the time of the completion of the business of this case.
This is the same.