건물인도 등
1. Of the part concerning the counterclaim of the first instance judgment, the Plaintiff (Counterclaim Defendant) who exceeds the following amount ordered to pay.
1. The reasoning of the court’s explanation concerning this case is as stated in the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance, except where the part of the judgment of the court of first instance is dismissed as follows. Thus, this is acceptable by the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.
2. On the fourth page of the judgment of the court of first instance, the following shall be added to a part added or added:
E. The defendant delivered the part of the building of this case to the plaintiff on May 31, 2018, as follows: (a) Nos. 4, 2, and 3 of the first instance judgment of "the part of the building of this case was delivered to the plaintiff."
In accordance with the first instance judgment of the court of first instance, the first instance court's 4 to 5 shall be followed as follows, except for the fact that there is no dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1, 5, Eul evidence Nos. 1 to 4, 6 through 10, the witness F's testimony, and the purport of the whole pleadings.
“A) The Plaintiff’s assertion that the Defendant did not pay 3/60,000 (3,300,000 x 12 months) to the Plaintiff, on August 30, 2017, which was the date of termination of the lease contract. Since August 30, 2017, the date of termination of the lease contract, the Plaintiff obtained unjust enrichment equivalent to the rent for nine months from May 31, 2018, the date of delivery of the instant building part of the instant case. As such, the Defendant is obliged to pay the Plaintiff the amount of KRW 30,60,000 (3,300,000 x 12 months) equivalent to the sum of the rent and rent in arrears. Accordingly, the Defendant is obliged to pay the Plaintiff KRW 30,60,000 remaining after deducting the lease deposit to be returned to the Defendant from the Plaintiff at KRW 39,60,000,000.
On the other hand, if the lessee continued to possess the leased building portion even after the termination of the lease contract, but there was no actual benefit due to the failure to use or profit-making, the lessor suffered loss.
Even if a lessee’s obligation to return unjust enrichment is not established (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 90Meu24076, Dec. 21, 1990). The Defendant’s portion of the instant building up to November 10, 2017.