건물명도(인도)
1. The Defendant’s KRW 1,328,387 with respect to the Plaintiff and KRW 5% per annum from August 31, 2017 to January 26, 2018.
1. Determination on the portion of the claim for return of unjust enrichment until the completion of the real estate name map and name map
A. The Plaintiff’s assertion is that the Defendant, who was the lessee of the instant real estate owned by the Plaintiff, transferred the rights and obligations of the lessee to the Plaintiff and the Defendant, is in a lease relationship between the Plaintiff and the Defendant. Since the Defendant did not pay rent, etc., the lease contract is terminated, and the Defendant sought an explanation against the Defendant of the instant real estate, and sought a return of unjust enrichment equivalent to the rent of KRW 300,000 per month from April 6, 2017 to the completion date of life
B. Although there is no dispute between the parties that have a lease relationship, as alleged by the Plaintiff, it is insufficient to acknowledge the fact that the Defendant occupies the instant real estate even until now, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it.
Rather, the Plaintiff voluntarily deposited the remainder remaining after deducting the rent in arrears until April 5, 2017, among the lease deposit, in the Defendant’s future, and the Defendant received it and went to the director, but argued to the effect that the payment remains and the entire purport of the argument is not recognized as the name of the Plaintiff. If the purport of the entire argument is added to the statement in Eul evidence 8, the Defendant may recognize the fact that the Plaintiff delivered the instant real estate to the Plaintiff by receiving the money as above from the Plaintiff’s director from the instant real estate and settling the electricity and gas charges around May 10, 2017, by giving six keyss of the instant real estate to the Plaintiff.
Therefore, the Plaintiff’s assertion on the Plaintiff’s claim for surrender based on the premise that the Defendant occupied the instant real estate is without merit. However, the Defendant is liable to pay the Plaintiff unjust enrichment equivalent to the rent from April 6, 2017, the following day after the payment of the above overdue charge, to May 10, 2017, which is the date the delivery was completed. Thus, the Defendant is liable to pay the Plaintiff unjust enrichment equivalent to the rent from April 6, 201, respectively. Therefore, KRW 348,387 =