beta
Text
1. The Plaintiff:
A. The Defendants deliver the real estate listed in the separate sheet;
B. The Defendants each on April 25, 2013.
Reasons
1. Facts of recognition;
A. On March 13, 2013, the Plaintiff decided to purchase real estate listed in the separate sheet (hereinafter “instant apartment”) from G from G in the purchase price of KRW 180 million, and completed the registration of ownership transfer on April 24, 2013 with respect to the instant apartment.
B. The Defendants were occupying the instant apartment while residing in the instant apartment from around 1993 to the time of the closing of the argument in the instant case.
C. The monthly rent of the instant apartment from April 2013 to one year is KRW 972,00.
[Ground of recognition] Unsatisfy, entry of Gap 1 and 2 evidence, appraiser H’s appraisal result, the purport of the whole pleadings
2. The assertion and judgment
A. According to the above fact-finding on the ground of claim 1) The defendants who possess the apartment of this case have a duty to deliver the above apartment to the plaintiff who seeks the removal of disturbance as owner of the apartment of this case. 2) According to the above fact-finding on the claim for the return of unjust enrichment, the defendants are occupying and using the apartment of this case without the title to occupy the apartment of this case as seen below, and the plaintiff suffered loss from this result. Thus, since the defendants are occupying and using the apartment of this case, the money calculated in the proportion of the rent of KRW 972,00 (which is the monthly rent from April 25, 2013 to the completion date of delivery of the above apartment of this case (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 200Da13948, Dec. 11, 2001).
B. As to the Defendants’ assertion, the Defendants asserted that Defendant D had a legitimate title to the possession of the above apartment inasmuch as Defendant D entered into a lease agreement with the network I, which was the former owner of the above apartment in relation to the apartment in this case, and may oppose the Plaintiff.
According to the evidence Nos. 2, 2, and 12, I, who was the owner of the apartment of this case, is above Defendant D.