beta
(영문) 서울중앙지방법원 2017.10.12 2017가단5050047

건물명도(인도)

Text

1. The defendant shall pay KRW 50,756,438 to the plaintiff.

2. The plaintiff's remaining claims are dismissed.

3. Of the costs of lawsuit.

Reasons

1. Basic facts

A. The Seocho-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government C Dae-gu (hereinafter “instant land”) is owned by the Plaintiff, and on the fourth ground, such as D, E, F, etc. in the vicinity of the instant land and the construction of a pipe boom roof warehouse, and the said warehouse is kept in custody of the attached corporeal movables list, such as liquid, bottle, etc., and the area of the said warehouse site (hereinafter “instant site”) among the instant land is 56.8 square meters.

B. The Plaintiff filed a lawsuit against the Defendant for unjust enrichment claim (Seoul Central District Court 2014dan527568) against the Defendant, claiming the payment of the remainder of the unjust enrichment, excluding six million won already paid, calculated by the rate of one million won per month from August 1, 2012 to March 31, 2015 (Seoul Central District Court 2014dan527568), and the Defendant paid 25 million won to the Plaintiff and 20% interest calculated annually from January 15, 2015 to the day of full payment, “The Defendant was sentenced to a favorable judgment by service by publication.”

C. Accordingly, the Defendant filed an incidental appeal (Seoul Central District Court 2015Na3661), and the Plaintiff filed an incidental appeal, and thereafter the appellate court assessed the rent for the instant site from August 1, 2014 to July 31, 2015, the rent of KRW 2,364,00 per month, from August 1, 2015 to July 31, 2016 was KRW 2,290,00 per month, from August 1, 2015, and from August 1, 2016 to August 8, 2016.

On November 22, 2016, the above appeal case was finalized by the defendant's withdrawal of appeal, and the above judgment of the first instance became final and conclusive.

[Reasons for Recognition] Each entry of Gap 1 through 7 (including branch numbers) and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination on the cause of the claim

A. The plaintiff's assertion that the defendant still owns and occupies the above warehouse and the corporeal movables kept therein, and without permission, occupies the site of this case.