beta
(영문) 대전고등법원 2020.11.19 2020나12590

토지인도 등

Text

The Defendant-Counterclaim Plaintiff’s appeal is dismissed.

Expenses for appeal shall be borne by the Defendant (Counterclaim Plaintiff).

purport, purport, and.

Reasons

1. The reasons why the court of the first instance cited this case are stated in the reasoning of the first instance judgment, except for adding the following judgments as to the defendant's assertion, thereby citing this case in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

Additional Determination

A. As to the claim for return of unjust enrichment, the Defendant installed a facility equivalent to KRW 206,052,00 in total as indicated below with respect to the instant real estate as indicated in the following table, which led to the increase in land value among the instant real estate, the Plaintiff has a liability to return unjust enrichment, and the Defendant has a lien based on the above claim.

The expenses required for the first type of the construction work (new installation) required for the first type of electric stabilizing equipment (new installation) during the repair year 32,087,000 2016 23,430,000 2016 5,016 18,348,000 necessary expenses for the installation of purification equipment (new installation) required for 103,422,000 200 20137 18,348,000 necessary expenses for the installation of purification equipment (new installation) required for 28,490,000 2015 9,000 28,490,000 2015 206,000 205,000 206,000 2,000 200 200 2015 2,00 15,000 20

This part of the defendant's argument is without merit.

B. On January 7, 2015, the Defendant: (a) prepared a formal charter agreement with the Plaintiff around early 2015; (b) prepared a letter of performance of the Plaintiff’s writing stating that “if the Plaintiff is unable to pay the monthly rent, etc. that was partially in arrears until that time, he/she would waive the swine breeding” and the Defendant’s seal impression was affixed to the Plaintiff, and the Plaintiff’s seal impression was affixed to the Plaintiff. However, the Plaintiff had the Defendant’s seal impression affixed to the Plaintiff on January 7, 2015.