beta
Text
1. The Defendant’s KRW 25,596,640 as well as the Plaintiff’s annual rate from April 14, 2015 to July 1, 2016, and the following.
Reasons
1. Basic facts
A. Article 42(1) of the State Property Act, Article 38(3) of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act, and the Act on the Efficient Disposal of Non-Performing Assets, etc. of Financial Companies and the Establishment of Korea Asset Management Corporation was partially amended by Act No. 10682 on May 19, 201, and the Act on the Efficient Disposal of Non-Performing Assets, etc. of Financial Companies and the Establishment of Korea Asset Management Corporation was amended.
In accordance with Article 26 (1) 8, the Ministry of Strategy and Finance entrusted the right to manage and dispose of the land in Daegu-gu B, 249.6 square meters (hereinafter referred to as “instant land”) owned by the State (the Ministry of Finance and Economy on the register).
B. On August 10, 2006, the Plaintiff and the Defendant concluded a loan agreement with respect to the instant land by setting the annual loan fee of KRW 7,990,000, loan period from August 10, 2006 to August 9, 201. The Defendant constructed a greenhouse on the instant land and run a fireworks and indoor landscape business.
C. As of August 9, 2010, the Plaintiff expressed his/her intent to terminate the loan agreement as of August 10, 2010 pursuant to Article 36(1)4 of the State Property Act and Articles 7, 8, and 10 of the loan agreement, as of August 10, 201, the amount in arrears of the Defendant’s loan was KRW 9,371,530,000, and the employee in charge of the Plaintiff met the Defendant on August 19, 2010, and confirmed the arrival of the indication
[Reasons for Recognition] Unsatisfy, Gap evidence Nos. 7, 8, 12, Eul evidence No. 1, Eul's testimony
2. The assertion and judgment
A. The Plaintiff asserts that the Defendant’s possession and use of the instant land from August 20, 201 to November 10, 201, which was subsequent to the termination of the loan agreement on the instant land, is without any legal ground and asserts a return of unjust enrichment equivalent to the royalty.
The defendant had remaining the period of the loan agreement, and the plaintiff could recover the unpaid loan fee by demanding an additional distribution in the auction procedure that is in progress with respect to the property owned by the defendant.