건물명도(인도)
1. The defendant points out of the real estate listed in the separate sheet to the plaintiff each point of the attached sheet Nos. 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, and 1.
1. Determination as to the request for extradition
(a) Indication of claims: To be as shown in the reasons for the claims;
(b) Judgment by service (Article 208 (3) 3 of the Civil Procedure Act);
2. Although the Plaintiff sought a return of unjust enrichment equivalent to the rent for the instant building at the rate of KRW 3.50,000 per month against the Defendant, the evidence submitted by the Plaintiff alone is insufficient to recognize that the said building is the rent of the said building at the rate of KRW 3.50,00 per month, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge that the said building is the difference.
In addition, in a case where the lessee continued to possess the leased building area after the lease contract relationship was terminated, but the lessee did not obtain substantial benefits due to the failure to use the leased building or make profit according to the original purpose of the lease contract, and thus, the lessee’s return of unjust enrichment is not established even if the lessor
The same applies to the case where a lessee was either unable to use or make profit from the leased building due to the lessee’s circumstances, or the lessee was not removed from his/her own facilities (see Supreme Court Decision 2003Da60488, Jan. 29, 2004). The evidence and assertion submitted by the Plaintiff are insufficient to recognize that the Defendant obtained a substantial benefit by using or making profit from the leased building exceeding the possession of the leased building in the shape of the building in question, etc., and there is no other evidence to prove otherwise.
Therefore, the plaintiff's claim for this part is without merit.
3. Thus, the plaintiff's claim is partially accepted within the above scope of recognition, and the remainder is dismissed as it is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.