beta
Text
1. The defendant shall be the plaintiff.
(a) KRW 1,775,00 and 5% per annum from June 30, 2015 to June 9, 2016; and
Reasons
1. Since the Defendant, from November 21, 2014, resided in the real estate listed in the separate sheet owned by the Plaintiff (hereinafter “instant building”) from November 21, 2014, and occupied the building, there is no dispute between the parties, the Defendant is obligated to return unjust enrichment from the possession and use of the instant building to the Plaintiff.
With regard to the scope of unjust enrichment, the amount of unjust enrichment from the occupation and use of real estate is the amount equivalent to the rent of the relevant real estate.
During the period from November 21, 2014 to June 23, 2015, the Defendant’s fact that the pertinent building was the appropriate tea from November 21, 2014 to June 23, 2015 is no dispute between the parties and that the pertinent rent would be the same even thereafter.
Therefore, the Defendant shall, upon return of unjust enrichment, pay to the Plaintiff the amount of KRW 1,775,00 (=250,000 + 7+3/30), which is equivalent to the rent for the instant building, corresponding to the period from November 21, 2014 to June 23, 2015 (7th day) and the Defendant shall be liable to pay the Plaintiff the amount calculated at the rate of KRW 1,775,00, which is equivalent to the rent for the instant building from June 24, 2015 (7+3/30) and the amount calculated at the rate of KRW 250,00 from June 30, 2015, which is the day following the delivery date of the copy of the instant complaint, to June 9, 2016, which is deemed reasonable for the Defendant to resist the scope of the Defendant’s obligation to perform.
(A) The Plaintiff sought a return of unjust enrichment, such as the purport of the claim, on the premise that it is the adequate difference of the instant building KRW 271,542 per month, but there is no evidence to deem that it is the adequate difference of the said building more than KRW 250,00 per month and reached KRW 271,542 per month, and thus, the Plaintiff does not accept a claim exceeding the above recognition scope).
A. The allegation that C leased the instant building from the Plaintiff or his/her agent.