건물명도(인도)
1. The plaintiff's claims against the defendants are all dismissed.
2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.
Facts of recognition
A. The Plaintiff was in de facto marital relationship with Defendant B from October 201 to October 2016.
Defendant C is the mother of Defendant B, and Defendant D is the mother of Defendant B.
B. E Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “E”) completed the registration of ownership transfer with respect to each real estate listed in the separate sheet on November 12, 2009 (hereinafter “the instant telecom”).
C. Defendant D and F acquired 50% of the shares of E around 201, respectively, and Defendant B assumed office as an internal director on July 7, 2011.
On February 29, 2012, the Plaintiff purchased the instant franchise from E for KRW 3.25 billion; however, the down payment of KRW 100 million was concluded on February 29, 2012, and the remainder of KRW 3.150 million was to be paid on March 28, 2012 (hereinafter “instant sales contract”); and on March 28, 2012, the Plaintiff completed the registration of ownership transfer for the instant franchise on the ground of the said sales contract.
E. As of the date of the closing of argument in the instant case, the Defendants are operating the Moel while occupying the instant Moel.
[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1, 8, 20, Eul evidence Nos. 1 through 5 and 9 (including additional evidence; hereinafter the same shall apply), the parties' assertion of the purport of the whole pleadings
A. The Plaintiff is the Plaintiff’s owner of the instant Moel, and the Defendants illegally occupied the said Moel from the early December 2016, thereby gaining operating income exceeding KRW 60 million each month.
Therefore, the Defendants should jointly deliver the instant Moel to the Plaintiff, and jointly and severally pay to the Plaintiff KRW 30 million each month for part of the damages or unjust enrichment from December 10, 2016 to the completion date of delivery of the said Moel.
B. The Defendants’ Moel held the title trust of the Plaintiff by E, which is null and void pursuant to Article 4 of the Act on the Registration of Real Estate under Actual Titleholder’s Name. As such, the ownership of the said Moel still remains to E.
Defendant B as a representative of E and an intra-company director, and the franchise of this case.