beta
Text
The judgment below
The part against the defendant is reversed, and that part of the case is remanded to the Daejeon District Court Panel Division.
Reasons
The grounds of appeal are examined.
1. The lower court determined that the Defendant, as an indirect possessor of the leased object of this case, was liable to return unjust enrichment from his possession to the Plaintiff, on the ground that the Defendant, the mortgagee, was found to have occupied C, the direct possessor of the leased object of this case, as an indirect possessor of the leased object of this case.
2. However, the lower court’s determination is difficult to accept for the following reasons.
Even if the secured party used the land owned by a third party, which is not the secured party, as a collateral, it cannot be said that there was any real benefit for the secured party, and it cannot be said that there was any real benefit for the secured party, and that it interfered with the third party's actual possession.
(See Supreme Court Decision 80Da979 delivered on January 13, 1981). B.
The judgment below
The reasoning and evidence duly admitted and examined by the court below reveal the following facts.
1) On January 31, 2009, the Plaintiff leased the instant leased object KRW 50 million to C, monthly rent of KRW 2 million, and the term of lease from March 1, 2009 to February 28, 201, but renewed the lease contract by setting the lease period of KRW 2.2 million as monthly rent around February 201, and the term of lease from March 1, 2013 to February 28, 2015. (2) The Plaintiff was in arrears with the Plaintiff, and on August 4, 2014, expressed to C the intention to terminate the instant lease agreement on the instant leased object on the grounds of overdue rent, and at that time, delivered notice to C at that time.
3) On April 16, 2015, the Defendant issued to C a letter of undertaking to provide C with all rights to a restaurant located in the leased object of this case as a security for transfer. C is a person who holds a claim of KRW 250 million against C.