beta
Text
1. For the plaintiffs:
A. Defendant C’s KRW 3,250,000, respectively, and 5% per annum from March 18, 2015 to September 3, 2015.
Reasons
1. The following facts may be acknowledged in light of the purport of the whole pleadings in each of the statements in Gap evidence Nos. 1, 2, 3, Eul evidence No. 2, Eul evidence No. 1, and Eul evidence No. 1.
E Co., Ltd and Defendant C owned one-half shares of the instant building and one-half shares of the 793.8 square meters of a single-story factory in the Fbdo-dong Ga-dong Ga-dong Ga-dong Ga-dong (hereinafter referred to as “Na Dong-dong building”), and the Plaintiffs owned one-fourth shares of the E Co., Ltd. on August 30, 2012, with the share of 1/2 of the instant building and B-dong building, respectively.
B. Afterwards, the Plaintiffs filed a lawsuit against Defendant C seeking the partition of the instant building and B-dong building (Seoul Southern District Court 2012Kadan84947). Around September 2013, the decision was finalized as a substitute for conciliation with the content that “the Plaintiff shall own the instant building solely, but shall pay KRW 30 million to Defendant C,” and that “Defendant C shall own the instant building solely.”
C. In addition, according to the above decision, the Plaintiffs acquired Defendant C’s 1/2 shares as to the instant building on January 20, 2014, and completed the registration of ownership transfer. Defendant C acquired each 1/4 shares of the Plaintiffs as to the instant building, and completed the registration of ownership transfer on November 12, 2013.
Meanwhile, Defendant C leased the same building to Defendant D, the monthly rent of KRW 1 million around October 201, and again leased the same building as KRW 1 million on July 31, 201, and the lease period of KRW 24 months, and Defendant D received KRW 15 million in lump sum from Defendant D from August 1, 2012 to October 31, 2013. Defendant D used the same building until September 30, 2013, and used part of the operating building during the period of using the same building.
2. Claim against Defendant C
A. The Plaintiffs in determining the claim for return of unjust enrichment, which occurred from August 30, 2012 to January 31, 2014, as to the cause of the claim, are the Plaintiffs, and Defendant C’s building was the same to Defendant D on August 2012.