건물인도 등
1. The defendant shall appoint the plaintiff (appointed party) and the appointed party C in the annexed name list of the appointed party C:
(a) the buildings listed in the separate sheet;
1. Facts of recognition;
A. On October 8, 2016, D leased buildings listed in the separate sheet (hereinafter “instant building”) to E with the lease deposit amount of KRW 5 million, KRW 210,000 per month, and the lease term from October 31, 2016 to October 30, 2019.
B. On December 22, 2017, Plaintiff (Appointed Party) and the Selectioner C indicated in the Attached List of Names (hereinafter “Plaintiff, etc.”) purchased each of the instant buildings from D and F, and completed the registration of ownership transfer on January 3, 2018.
C. The Defendant occupied and used the instant building from the time when the Plaintiff et al. acquired the ownership of the instant building to the present day.
[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, entry of Gap 1, 2, and 5 evidence, purport of the whole pleadings
2. Determination
A. According to the above facts of recognition as to the cause of the claim, barring any special circumstance, the Defendant is obligated to deliver the instant building to the Plaintiff, etc., and pay unjust enrichment equivalent to the rent calculated by the ratio of KRW 210,000 per month from January 3, 2018 to the completion date of delivery of the instant building, which the Plaintiff, etc. acquired ownership of the instant building.
B. The Defendant’s assertion (1) asserts that the Defendant concluded a loan agreement with D to use the instant building until October 31, 2019, prior to the purchase of the instant building by the Plaintiff, etc., and that the Plaintiff, etc. knew of such circumstances, the Defendant, while allowing the Defendant to use the instant building free of charge during the said period and purchased the instant building, the Defendant did not have a duty to deliver the instant building.
The written evidence No. 5, No. 1, and No. 1 are insufficient to acknowledge the defendant's above assertion. Since there is no other evidence to acknowledge it, the defendant's above assertion is without merit.
(2) The Defendant’s demand for delivery of the instant building constitutes nonperformance of obligation or tort, and constitutes a tort from December 30, 2017 to December 30, 2019.