beta
Text
1. The Defendants deliver to the Plaintiff each real estate listed in the separate sheet.
2. The plaintiff's remainder against the defendants.
Reasons
1. In the event of a claim for extradition, the Plaintiff is the purchaser who purchased each of the instant real estate from the Seoul Central District Court E and F (Dual) auction procedure in the Seoul Central District Court E and the real estate auction procedure, and completed the registration of ownership transfer on December 22, 2016. The Plaintiff completed the registration of ownership transfer on January 12, 2017. The Defendants may recognize the fact that they possess each of the instant real estate without any title by making a move-in report on the real estate indicated in the attached list and keeping part of the goods.
In this regard, Defendant B asserted that there was a beneficial cost of KRW 4,800,000, such as managing each of the instant real estate and handling electricity, water leakage, etc. partially, and performing turf batteries work to protect the surrounding landscape. However, it is difficult to recognize that there was a beneficial cost for the said Defendant’s assertion solely on the basis of each of the descriptions set forth in B A1 through 12 submitted by the said Defendant
Therefore, Defendant B’s assertion is without merit.
Therefore, the Defendants are obligated to deliver each of the instant real estate to the Plaintiff.
2. Giving benefits in return of unjust enrichment on the ground that the right to claim restitution of unjust enrichment has arisen without any legal ground. As such, where a lessee continued possession of the leased building after the lease contract relationship was terminated, but no practical benefit has been gained because the lessee failed to use or make profit from the leased building for the original purpose of the lease contract, even if the lessee incurred loss to the lessor, the lessee’s obligation to return unjust enrichment is not established. The same applies where the lessee did not use or make profit from the leased building or the lessee did not take out the leased building due to the lessee’s circumstances.
(See Supreme Court Decision 98Da8554 delivered on July 10, 1998. The Defendants keep part of the goods.