건물명도
1.Paragraph 2 of the order of the judgment of the first instance, including a claim modified in the trial, shall be modified as follows:
1. Facts of recognition;
A. On January 8, 2015, the Plaintiff acquired real estate listed in the separate sheet (hereinafter referred to as “instant real estate”) in the public sale process on the same day, completed the registration of ownership transfer, and owns the said real estate until the date of closing argument.
B. Meanwhile, as the direct possessor of the instant real estate from January 8, 2015, Defendant C Co., Ltd (hereinafter “Defendant Co., Ltd”) has occupied and used the instant real estate as the indirect possessor of the instant real estate.
C. Defendant B voluntarily delivered the instant real estate to the Plaintiff around October 16, 2016.
[Ground of recognition] Unsatisfy, Gap evidence Nos. 1 and 2, fact inquiry by the court of first instance to the Korea Electric Power Corporation, the purport of the whole pleadings
2. According to the facts of recognition as above, the Defendants acquired profits from the use of the instant real estate by occupying and using the instant real estate, and thereby incurred damages equivalent to the same amount to the Plaintiff. Thus, the Defendants jointly have a duty to jointly return the instant real estate from January 8, 2015, which is the date of acquisition of the Plaintiff’s ownership, to October 16, 2016, to the Plaintiff from January 8, 2015, the date of acquisition of the Plaintiff’s ownership.
The defendants asserted to the purport that the plaintiff's claim of this case is unjustifiable because the defendant company exercised the right of retention on the real estate of this case. However, even if the possessor of the building occupies the building under the right of retention, if he uses it in excess of simply occupying the building and gains substantial profits, the amount equivalent to the rent should be returned as unjust gains. As seen in the above facts acknowledged, as seen above, the defendant Eul used the real estate of this case directly while directly occupying it, and the defendant company occupied it indirectly, the above assertion by the defendants is rejected.
3. Undue profits.