건물명도
1. The lawsuit of this case shall be dismissed.
2. The costs of retrial shall be borne by the Defendant (Counterclaim Plaintiff, or Plaintiff for retrial).
1. The following facts, which have become final and conclusive in the judgment subject to review, are apparent in records or obvious to this court:
On November 11, 2008, the Plaintiff purchased D Apartment 6 Complex E (hereinafter “instant shopping complex”) from N, and on November 28, 2008, the Plaintiff and the Defendant shared the instant shopping complex in equal shares, purchased real estate in the attached Form (hereinafter “instant apartment”) owned by the Plaintiff, and entered into an agreement including the content that the Plaintiff leases it again to the Defendant.
B. On December 1, 2008, the Plaintiff completed the registration of the right to claim ownership transfer registration on the instant apartment on December 1, 2008 based on the pre-sale agreement in the name of the Plaintiff and the Defendant stating that the date of the pre-sale agreement shall be December 10, 2008 and that the sale shall be deemed to have been completed without any separate declaration of intent (hereinafter “instant pre-sale agreement”).
C. On September 29, 2011, the Plaintiff filed a lawsuit against the Defendant seeking principal registration based on the above provisional registration (Seoul Northern District Court Decision 2011Da11365) and was rendered a favorable judgment on September 29, 2011, and the Defendant’s appeal and appeal were all dismissed, the above judgment became final and conclusive as it is.
(hereinafter the above final judgment is referred to as “related final judgment”). D.
On August 14, 2012, the Plaintiff filed a lawsuit (Seoul Northern District Court 2012Gahap8820, Seoul Northern District Court 2012) claiming the delivery of the instant apartment, unjust enrichment equivalent to the rent, and reimbursement amount (such as provisional registration expenses, traffic inducement charges, property tax, long-term repair appropriations) against the Defendant, asserting that the Plaintiff purchased the instant apartment without title, and that the Defendant occupied the instant apartment without title. On October 10, 2012, the Defendant filed a lawsuit against the Plaintiff for the remaining purchase price of the instant apartment, interest on loans and reimbursement loans, property tax, long-term repair appropriations, apartment management fees, and charges for causing traffic congestion.