beta
Text
1. The plaintiff's appeal and the claim added in the trial and the defendant's appeal are dismissed, respectively.
2. Costs of appeal.
Reasons
1. The scope of the trial requested from the first instance court to deliver the real estate listed in the annexed list and to return the amount of unjust enrichment equivalent to the monthly rent from the date of completion of the delivery of the real estate. The first instance court accepted the portion of the claim for delivery of the real estate and rejected the portion of the claim for restitution of unjust enrichment (Partial rejection, and the remainder dismissal). After that, the Defendant, upon the delivery of the real estate above, sought the portion of the claim for restitution of unjust enrichment, which was sought with the due fund, including the period during which the due date has not arrived, as stated in the above purport of the claim
Accordingly, the Paragraph 2 ordering the delivery of real estate in the judgment of the court of first instance has become null and void, and the scope of the trial is limited to the claim for unjust enrichment and the claim for additional damages for delay in the trial.
2. The reasoning for this part of the facts in this court is as follows in Section 1(f) of the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance. The plaintiff notified the return of the leased object upon the expiration of the contract term on February 18, 2014, three months before the expiration of the lease term under the above lease term. From March 5, 2014, the plaintiff notified his/her intention not to permit the extension of the lease term without any change in the condition that the lease deposit should be increased by two billion won. (h) The defendant delivered the real estate of this case to the plaintiff on September 15, 2015 after filing an appeal. The reason for recognition is as stated in Section 1 of the judgment of first instance except for adding "each description No. 6-1, 2, and 3 of the evidence No. 6-1" to the part of the judgment of first instance. Thus, it is cited as it is in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.
3. Determination
A. According to the above findings of the determination on the cause of the claim, the above lease agreement with the Plaintiff on the instant real estate was terminated on May 14, 2014, and the Defendant.