beta
Text
1. Of the judgment of the court of first instance, the part against the defendant exceeding the amount ordered to be paid below shall be revoked.
Reasons
1. Basic facts
A. A. On January 2012, the Defendant entered into a lease agreement on the 601st shop and No. 604 of the 6th floor of the 3rd floor of the 7th floor of the 7th floor of the 6nd floor of the 601st and the 604th shop of the 601st floor of the 6th floor of the 601st floor of the 601st and the 604th shop of the 604th floor of the 601st and the 604th 604 "the 604th 604" collectively, and received a delivery from the M&D branch.
B. On November 9, 2012, the following day after the Plaintiff purchased the instant stores in the process of voluntary auction at Goyang-gu Seoul District Court Goyang-dong D, and completed the registration of ownership transfer for the instant stores on the same day, and on August 19, 2013, the Plaintiff completed the registration of ownership transfer for E around August 19, 2013.
6. 14. 14. He completed the registration of ownership transfer for the instant stores on the grounds of sale.
【Ground of recognition】 The fact that there has been no dispute, entry of Gap Nos. 1, 3 through 6, and the purport of whole pleading
2. Determination
A. The claim for restitution of unjust enrichment as to subparagraph 601 of the instant case is established (the Defendant’s judgment on the Plaintiff’s assertion is from November 9, 2012 to January 31, 2013, which was possessed and used in the course of operating a private teaching institute under subparagraph 601 of the instant case, and there is no dispute between the parties, and the Plaintiff owned and used subparagraph 601 of the instant case during the said period as seen earlier. As such, it is deemed that the Defendant obtained the benefits of use by occupying and using subparagraph 601 of the instant case and caused damage to the Plaintiff equivalent to the said amount. Accordingly, the Defendant is obligated to return the benefits of use during the said period to the Plaintiff as unjust enrichment.
The Plaintiff asserted that, since the Defendant occupied and used the instant subparagraph 601 from December 1, 2013 to February 9, 2013, the Plaintiff was obligated to return the profits used during the said period as well as the profits used during the said period. However, the Defendant exceeded the above recognition period and up to February 9, 2013.