건물명도 등
1. The defendant shall pay to the plaintiff KRW 20,367,741.
2. One-fourth of the costs of lawsuit shall be the plaintiff, and the remainder shall be the defendant.
1. Facts of recognition;
A. On July 2, 2008, the Plaintiff completed the registration of initial ownership relating to the real estate listed in the separate sheet (hereinafter “instant apartment”). On September 4, 2015, the said apartment was sold to D in the Daejeon District Court C’s compulsory auction of real estate.
B. The Defendant asserted that, as the representative of the subcontractor’s subcontractor’s subcontractor’s re-building work for E-il apartment reconstruction work from the current Cancer Construction Co., Ltd., the Defendant was the F-owned assistant who exercises the right of retention on the basis of the claim for construction price. On September 20, 2012, the Defendant completed the move-in report on the instant apartment on September 20, 201 and resided in the said apartment from September 3, 2015.
C. The Daejeon Jung-gu Daejeon District Court 2010Kadan3511, which owned No. 403, etc., and six other persons filed a lawsuit seeking the delivery of a building against seven persons, including F, Daejeon District Court 2010Kadan3511. As a result of the assessment of rent in the foregoing case, the rent of No. 403 and No. 903, etc. is KRW 574,00 per month as of July 22, 2010.
[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1, 4, Eul evidence 3-1, the purport of the whole pleadings
2. Where a person who exercises a lien on the basis of the claim for the payment of the construction cost, resides in and uses it in the house which is the object of retention, barring any special circumstance, falls under the use necessary for the preservation of the object of retention as an act helpful for the preservation of the object of retention. However, even if the lien holder uses it necessary for the preservation of the object of retention, he/she shall return
(See Supreme Court Decision 2009Da40684 Decided September 24, 2009, etc.). Therefore, regardless of whether the Defendant is F’s occupation assistant, the Defendant is obligated to return to the Plaintiff the rent that occurred from September 20, 2012 to September 3, 2015, the day before the Plaintiff loses its ownership of the apartment.