부동산인도 등 청구
1. The plaintiff (Counterclaim defendant)'s main claim and the defendant (Counterclaim plaintiff)'s counterclaim are all dismissed.
2. The costs of lawsuit shall be.
1. Facts without dispute;
A. The Plaintiff is the owner of the real estate listed in the attached list (hereinafter “the apartment of this case”). C is the Plaintiff’s spouse, and the Defendant is the lessee who concluded a lease contract for the apartment of this case.
B. On July 17, 2016, the defendant, under the brokerage of a licensed real estate agent, deposited money of KRW 190 million with respect to C and the apartment of this case, from among the plaintiff's agents, and the period thereof.
7. From 25. to July 24, 2018, a lease agreement was concluded.
(hereinafter “instant lease agreement”). C.
The defendant deposited the full amount of the lease deposit agreed with the plaintiff's bank account and E Bank account designated by C by July 28, 2016, and is residing in the above apartment until now.
On November 7 of the same year, the plaintiff filed a lawsuit seeking divorce and division of property against C, and the above lawsuit is currently pending in the court of appeal.
2. Determination on the main claim
A. 1) The gist of the Plaintiff’s assertion 1) The Defendant concluded the instant lease agreement with C, who was acting as the Plaintiff’s agent, and the Plaintiff did not grant the right to execute the said lease agreement or the right to dispose of the instant apartment. Therefore, the instant lease agreement is null and void. Therefore, the Defendant is obliged to deliver the said apartment to the Plaintiff, and return the amount equivalent to the rent from the occupancy date to the completion date of the delivery of the said apartment as unjust enrichment. 2) The gist of the Defendant’s argument is that C entered into the said lease agreement with the right to represent daily home affairs, or that the Plaintiff granted the Plaintiff the right to enter into the instant lease agreement on behalf of the husband, and thus, the instant lease agreement is valid.
Even if C did not have the right of representation for the conclusion of the instant lease agreement, C has the basic right of representation for the Plaintiff, and the Defendant has to C.