건물명도 및 부당이득금반환
1. The defendant shall be the plaintiff.
(a) Of the buildings listed in the separate sheet, each point indicated in the separate sheet No. 2, 3, 8, 7, and 2;
1. Determination as to the cause of claim
A. 1) On August 30, 2008, the Plaintiff (hereinafter “instant building”) connected the Defendant with each point of (a) part of (a) 15 square meters in the ship connecting each point of the attached Form 2, 3, 8, 7, and 2 among the buildings listed in the attached Table among the buildings listed in the attached Table.
(2) Around 2012, the Plaintiff agreed to rent KRW 140,000 per month without a lease deposit, but around 2012, the Plaintiff agreed to change the rent between the Defendant and the said lease contract into KRW 150,000 per month. (2) As the Plaintiff demanded the Defendant to deliver the instant building on the ground of the rent, the Defendant drafted a letter of intent on November 201, stating that “The Plaintiff and the Defendant are to move to the instant building by the end of November 2014, but the Plaintiff shall pay KRW 300,000 to the Defendant.”
3) The defendant has possessed the building of this case until now. [The fact that there is no dispute over the grounds for recognition, entry of Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 5, and the purport of the whole pleadings.]
B. According to the above facts of recognition, the Defendant is obligated to deliver the instant building to the Plaintiff, and to return unjust enrichment equivalent to the rent calculated by the ratio of KRW 150,000 per month from February 1, 2015 to the completion date of delivery of the instant building, as the Plaintiff seeks.
2. The defendant's assertion argues that the defendant cannot deliver the building of this case from the plaintiff until the refund of the deposit for lease on the building of this case is made.
In this case, there is no evidence to prove that the Defendant paid the Plaintiff the lease deposit with respect to the instant building. As seen in the above facts-finding, even if the Plaintiff’s agreement to pay KRW 300,000 to the Defendant is deemed as the lease deposit, the Defendant is obligated to pay the Plaintiff the amount of unjust enrichment of KRW 300,000 equivalent to two-month rent from December 1, 2014 to January 31, 2015, and the amount of KRW 300,000 in each letter of the instant case was deducted from the amount of unjust enrichment, and thus, the Defendant was unpaid.