beta
Text
1. The defendant shall be the plaintiff.
(a)delivery of Magyang-si C and Da E Apartment F;
B. From September 3, 2018, the same shall apply.
Reasons
1. On March 2, 2015, the E Apartment F (hereinafter “instant building”) in Gwangju-si C and D (hereinafter “the instant building”) leased (the lease period: until September 2, 2016; the lease deposit amount: KRW 10 million per month; and the rent: KRW 500,000 per month) by Nonparty G to the Defendant on March 2, 2015, but renewed the lease period until September 2, 2018, and completed the registration of ownership transfer due to sale to the Plaintiff on December 8, 2017 (the purport of items A, B, and C), and the ownership of the instant building was succeeded to the Plaintiff.
Therefore, barring special circumstances, such as having opposing power to the defendant, the defendant is obligated to deliver the building of this case to the plaintiff, and return unjust enrichment equivalent to the rent calculated by the ratio of KRW 500,000 per month from September 3, 2018 to the date on which the plaintiff takes over the building of this case from September 3, 2018 to the date on which the ownership
2. On the other hand, the defendant acquired opposing power as stipulated in the Housing Lease Protection Act by filing a move-in report in the name of his employee after receiving the instant building from the delivery. The defendant asserts that the defendant has a legitimate title to occupy the instant building, since he did not receive a notification of legitimate rejection of renewal from the plaintiff who succeeded to the lessor status pursuant to the
Therefore, the Housing Lease Protection Act, the purpose of which is to protect the stability of the national residential life, is to protect the stability of the national residential life, and the corporation cannot claim opposing power as prescribed by the Housing Lease Protection Act because it is impossible to obtain the resident registration which is one of the requisite requirements under the Housing Lease Protection Act.
As such, (see Supreme Court Decision 96Da7236 delivered on July 11, 1997, and Supreme Court Decision 2003Da2918 delivered on July 25, 2003). The defendant's assertion, which is a legal person, is therefore without merit.
3. If so, the plaintiff's claim of this case is legitimate and acceptable.