beta
Text
1. The Defendant: (a) KRW 6,830,794; (b) KRW 15,194,516 to Plaintiff A; and (c) KRW 15,516 to each of the said money.
Reasons
1. Facts of recognition;
A. The Plaintiffs and the Defendant are co-owners of the building 202 on the ground in Dongjak-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government (hereinafter “instant building”) and the 1/2 shares of the said building from September 23, 201 to February 26, 2014, Plaintiff A owned or owned respectively, and Plaintiff B from the next day to the day of closing the argument in this case until the day of closing the argument in this case. The remaining 1/2 shares are owned by the Defendant from February 27, 2014 to the day of closing the argument in this case.
B. On January 20, 2013, the Defendant concluded a lease agreement with Nonparty F, and leased the instant building at KRW 5 million per month and KRW 500,000 per month, and let F occupy and use the instant building until the day of closing argument.
C. From January 20, 2013 to June 24, 2016, the appraised value of rent equivalent to one-half shares of the instant building is as follows:
Between 2013-01-20 to 2014-19-19 515,000,180,000 to 2014-19-20 to 535,000,420, 2015-01-20 to 2015-01-20 to 545,000,540,000 to 2015-01-20 to 2016-19-19,000 to 645,540,000 to 2016-20 to 2016-20 to 2016-20 to 2016-20 to 2016-240 to 560,00,890,00 [Grounds] The fact that there is no dispute, the record of appraiser evidence of subparagraph 2, the result of appraisal of this case, the purport of the overall entrustment of oral proceedings
2. Determination as to the cause of action
A. The relevant legal doctrine provides that all co-owners may use and benefit from the common property at the ratio of shares, and that matters concerning the management of the common property shall be determined by a majority of shares of co-owners. Thus, if one of the co-owners occupies and uses the common property exclusively without the consent of a majority of shares among the co-owners as to the method of use and profit-making, then the other co-owners shall make unjust enrichment corresponding to their shares (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2006Da49307, Nov. 24, 2006).
According to the above facts of recognition of liability, the defendant has exclusive possession and use of the whole building of this case by leasing it to F, and this is different.