건물명도 등
1. The defendant shall be the plaintiff.
(a) deliver the real estate listed in the annex;
B. From 14,45,944 won and July 27, 2016
1. In full view of the following: (a) review of the determination of the claim for delivery of the real estate indicated in the separate sheet (hereinafter “instant real estate”); (b) the Plaintiff acquired the ownership of the instant real estate after being awarded a successful bid in the voluntary auction process on March 30, 201; and (c) the Defendant occupied and used the instant real estate from November 27, 2013; and (d) barring special circumstances, the Defendant is obligated to deliver the instant real estate to the Plaintiff, barring special circumstances.
As to this, the defendant held that the real estate of this case was trusted in title to the plaintiff, and even if not, the plaintiff was awarded a successful bid at the defendant's money, so it is alleged that the plaintiff and the defendant shared the real estate of this case, but the evidence submitted by the defendant alone is insufficient to recognize it, and there is no other evidence to recognize it,
2. We examine the judgment on the claim for the payment of money. The defendant is obligated to return the profits earned by occupying and using the real estate of this case without a legitimate title to the plaintiff as unjust enrichment. The amount of unjust enrichment the defendant has to return to the plaintiff shall be equivalent to the rent for the real estate of this case. According to the court's entrustment of appraisal, the sum of the rent for November 27, 2013 to July 26, 2016 is 14,45,944, and the rent for the real estate of this case was 47,235, and the monthly rent for the real estate of this case around July 27, 2016, which is close to the date of the closing of argument of this case, shall be confirmed to be the same amount. Accordingly, the defendant is obligated to pay the plaintiff the amount of the rent for the real estate of this case with unjust enrichment from November 27, 2013 to July 27, 2016 to July 27, 2016.
3. In conclusion, the plaintiff's claim of this case is justified and it is so decided as per Disposition.