beta
Text
1. The Defendant (Counterclaim Plaintiff) shall deliver to the Plaintiff (Counterclaim Defendant) the real estate indicated in the separate sheet.
2...
Reasons
1. The principal lawsuit and counterclaim shall also be deemed to exist;
A. The Plaintiff is an owner who completed the registration of ownership transfer on September 13, 2002 with respect to the real estate listed in the separate sheet (hereinafter “instant apartment”).
B. The defendant is the plaintiff's birth as a ductal system. The defendant resided in the apartment of this case and occupies and uses it.
C. Meanwhile, the Defendant’s pro-friendly Ma C was married with the network D in 1943 and led to the Defendant. The network D died on July 30, 1979, and the network C died on May 27, 2013.
The plaintiff is the birth of the network E, the former part of the network D. D.
From around 202, the Defendant resided in the apartment of this case with the net C, and on January 12, 2016, after the death of the network C, the Plaintiff notified the Defendant that the instant apartment of this case will be transferred by March 12, 2016.
[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap 1-4 evidence, Eul 4 evidence, the purport of the whole pleadings
2. Determination as to the principal lawsuit
A. Plaintiff’s assertion 1) The Plaintiff purchased the instant apartment, and allowed the Defendant to reside in the instant apartment under the condition that he would live in the network C, and the Defendant also refused the Plaintiff’s demand for delivery, while continuing to reside in the instant apartment even after May 27, 2013, where the network C died. On January 12, 2016, the Plaintiff notified the Defendant that he would deliver the instant apartment by March 12, 2016 while cancelling the loan agreement with the Defendant for use (free use) with the Defendant. Accordingly, the Defendant delivered the instant apartment to the Plaintiff, and thus, returned unjust enrichment calculated at the rate of KRW 50,000 per month, which is equivalent to the rent from March 13, 2016 to delivery, from May 14, 2013, the Plaintiff purchased the instant apartment in accord with the Defendant’s possession of the real property to the Defendant as payment in kind.
Therefore, it is true.