beta
Text
1. The defendant shall be the plaintiff.
(a) deliver the real estate listed in the separate sheet;
(b) established in the above real estate.
Reasons
Comprehensively taking account of the overall purport of the arguments in Gap evidence Nos. 1, 2, 3, 6, and 7, Gap completed the registration of ownership transfer with respect to the real estate listed in the separate sheet (hereinafter "the instant store") on July 28, 1998. The facts of death on September 8, 2017, the plaintiff, E, F, G, and C, who are co-inheritors of the network A, agreed on the division of inherited property with the instant store's sole possession on September 21, 2017. The defendant, as the joint representative director of H Co., Ltd., the defendant, as the joint representative director of H, established various facilities and operated the "K" under the mutual name after occupying the J-dong first floor of the I building in Dongdaemun-gu Seoul, including the instant store.
According to the above facts, the plaintiff is the owner of the store of this case, and the defendant occupies the store of this case and infringes on the plaintiff's ownership. Thus, the defendant is obligated to deliver the store of this case to the plaintiff as a refund or obstruction removal based on ownership, and remove facilities installed in the store of this case.
In addition, since the Defendant occupied the instant store without any title from October 20, 2012 to the date, the Defendant is obligated to compensate the Plaintiff for the amount equivalent to the rent, which is the amount of damage caused by the possession and use of the instant store from October 20, 2012 to the date the delivery of the instant store is completed. Meanwhile, since the rent of the instant store from October 20, 2012 to October 20, the monthly rent of KRW 120,577 is not a dispute between the parties, the Defendant is liable to compensate the Plaintiff for damages due to the tort, which is calculated at the rate of KRW 120,577 per month from October 20, 2012 to the date the delivery of the instant store is completed.
Therefore, the plaintiff's claim of this case is reasonable, and it is decided as per Disposition by admitting it.