beta
Text
1. The defendant shall deliver to the plaintiff the real estate stated in the attached list.
2. The plaintiff's remaining claims are dismissed.
3...
Reasons
1. Basic facts
A. The Plaintiff is the owner of the instant real estate that completed the registration of ownership transfer under the Ordinance of the Ministry of Gwangju District Court No. 114084, Jun. 28, 2018, on the ground of sale on December 26, 2012 with respect to the instant real estate.
B. The defendant is a person who occupies the real estate of this case without title.
[Ground of recognition] A without dispute, entry of evidence No. 1, purport of the whole pleadings
2. According to the above facts of recognition, the defendant is obligated to deliver the real estate of this case to the plaintiff.
In addition to the delivery of the instant real estate, the Plaintiff sought a payment of unjust enrichment equivalent to the rent of KRW 300,000 per month from the day following the day when the duplicate of the instant complaint was served to the Defendant until the day when the delivery of the instant real estate was completed. However, there is no evidence to acknowledge that the rent of the instant real estate is equivalent to KRW 300,000 per month, and thus, the Plaintiff’s claim for return
The defendant is C, and the defendant holds the claim against C, and the plaintiff did not pay the purchase price of the real estate of this case to C, so it cannot respond to the plaintiff's claim.
However, there is no evidence to acknowledge that the right to dispose of the real estate of this case is C or the defendant holds a claim against C (if the right to dispose of the real estate of this case is C and the defendant holds a claim against C, such circumstance alone does not necessarily create a title to possess the real estate of this case). Since the fact that the plaintiff is the owner of the real estate of this case is identical to that of the above, the above argument by the defendant
3. Conclusion, the plaintiff's claim for delivery of the real estate of this case is reasonable, and the claim for return of unjust enrichment is dismissed. It is so decided as per Disposition.