건물명도 등
1. The plaintiff A:
A. Defendant 1 E shall have respect to KRW 35,807,452 and KRW 25,920,00 among them, from December 17, 2015 to KRW 8,160.
1. Claim against Defendant 1 E, Defendant 3 G, Defendant 4 H, Defendant 7 K, Defendant 8 L, Defendant 9 M, and Defendant 17 U
A. Defendant 1 E occupied and used the real estate listed in the separate sheet No. 1 E, Defendant 3 G, Defendant 4, the real estate listed in the separate sheet No. 5, Defendant 7K and Defendant 8, the real estate listed in the separate sheet No. 12, and Defendant M occupied and used the real estate listed in the separate sheet No. 13, respectively, from February 16, 2012 to May 9, 2016 without the consent of Plaintiff A, who is the owner. Defendant 17 U occupied and used the real estate listed in the separate sheet No. 25, from February 16, 2012 without the consent of Plaintiff C, who is the owner.
Therefore, Defendant 17 U shall deliver to Plaintiff C the real estate stated in attached Table 25, and Defendant 1 E, Defendant 3 G, Defendant 4, Defendant 7 K, Defendant 8 L, and Defendant 9 are obligated to pay the amount stated in each claim by returning unjust enrichment to Plaintiff A, and Defendant 17 U is obligated to pay the amount stated in each claim by return of unjust enrichment to Plaintiff C.
(b) Article 208(3)3 of the Civil Procedure Act of the applicable law and Article 208(3)3 of the Civil Procedure Act
C. For partial dismissal, Article 748 of the Civil Act provides that a bona fide beneficiary is liable for return of unjust enrichment to the extent that the benefit received exists (Article 748). A bona fide beneficiary is liable for compensating for damages, if he/she causes damages to the beneficiary with interest added thereto.
(2) Paragraph (2) of this Article provides that the person liable for return of unjust enrichment shall bear the burden of proof in respect of the fact that he is a malicious beneficiary.
(See Supreme Court Decision 2009Da24187, 24194, Jan. 28, 2010, etc.). Plaintiff A and C seek refund of interest and delayed payment on unjust enrichment on the premise that the said Defendants are malicious beneficiaries. However, the evidence submitted by the said Plaintiffs alone is insufficient to prove that the said Defendants are malicious beneficiaries. Rather, according to each of the evidence No. 12 (including the serial number), the said Defendants are the beneficiaries.