임대료 및 부당이득금반환
1. The lawsuit of this case shall be dismissed.
2. The application for intervention by the succeeding intervenor shall be dismissed;
1. Determination on the litigation for retrial of this case
A. The defendant (the plaintiff) asserts that there exists a ground for retrial that constitutes "when there is a defect in granting a legal representation right, powers of attorney, or authority necessary for legal action" under Article 451 (1) 3 of the Civil Procedure Act in the judgment subject to a retrial.
(b) No lawsuit for retrial shall be brought after five years have passed since the judgment of determination became final and conclusive.
(Article 456(3) of the Civil Procedure Act. The fact that the instant lawsuit for retrial was instituted on December 21, 2018 after five years have passed since the judgment subject to review became final and conclusive on August 14, 2009, is apparent in the record, and thus, the instant lawsuit for retrial is unlawful.
2. As to the application for intervention by succession, the Plaintiff Company A or the Plaintiff (Defendant review) filed a claim against the Defendant (Plaintiff) for return of unjust enrichment due to use and profit-making without title of the building in Seocho-gu Seoul (hereinafter “instant building”) by asserting that it was the owner of the unregistered building above the Seoul Seocho Q Site (hereinafter “instant building”), the succeeding intervenor filed the application for intervention by succession of this case by asserting that the Defendant (Plaintiff) comprehensively acquired the rights and duties under the lease agreement on the instant building.
However, on the ground that the Intervenor succeeded to the instant building comprehensively acquired the rights and obligations under the lease agreement on the instant building, it cannot be deemed that the Intervenor also assumed the obligation to return unjust enrichment due to the use and profit-making without title to the instant building. Therefore, the motion for intervention in the instant case is required
Does are unlawful on account of defects.
3. The conclusion is that the defendant (the plaintiff in the retrial)'s lawsuit of this case and the defendant (the plaintiff in the retrial)'s motion to intervene in the succession of this case are all dismissed. It is so decided as per Disposition.