부동산 인도 등 청구의 소
1. The defendant shall be the plaintiff.
(a) deliver each real estate listed in Appendix 1;
(b) KRW 16,479,130 and this shall apply thereto. < Amended by Act No. 1590, Sep. 201>
1. Facts of recognition;
A. On May 11, 2015, the Plaintiff and the Defendant concluded a public property loan agreement (hereinafter “instant loan agreement”) with regard to the instant real estate as the owner of each real estate listed in attached Table 1 (hereinafter “instant real estate”), which is a public property under the Public Property and Commodity Management Act (hereinafter “Public Property Act”); from May 20, 2015 to September 19, 2018; and from May 20, 2015, to KRW 3,645,100 for one year (calculated pursuant to Article 31 of the Enforcement Decree of the Public Property Act after the second year).
B. The Defendant was handed over the instant real estate from the Plaintiff around May 20, 2015 and occupied and used the instant real estate.
C. According to the instant loan agreement, the Defendant paid KRW 3,645,100 for the said one-year loan within 15 days from May 11, 2015, which is the date of entering into the contract (Article 3(2) of the contract), but the Defendant did not pay the loan fee, and even thereafter, did not pay the loan fee under the said loan agreement at all.
Although the Plaintiff requested the Defendant to pay rent under the instant loan agreement several times, the Plaintiff notified the Defendant that the instant loan agreement was terminated on September 14, 2017, on the ground that the Defendant did not pay rent, and the Defendant received the said notification on September 15, 2017.
E. Even after receiving the above notification from the Plaintiff, the Defendant occupied and used the instant real estate.
[Ground for Recognition: Unsatisfy, Gap 1 through 9 (including each number; hereinafter the same shall apply)
(i) each entry or video, the purport of the entire pleadings
2. Determination
A. According to the above facts finding as to the request for extradition, the instant loan agreement was lawfully terminated on September 15, 2017 by the Plaintiff’s notice of termination on the ground that the Defendant did not pay the loan charges. Thus, barring any special circumstance, the Defendant, as the owner of the instant real estate, sought the removal of interference based on ownership.