beta
Text
1. Revocation of a judgment of the first instance;
2. All of the plaintiff's claims are dismissed.
3. All costs of the lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.
Reasons
1. The Plaintiff purchased the instant store from Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “C”) on December 21, 2012 in KRW 801,00,000 and completed the registration of ownership transfer in the Plaintiff’s future on December 24, 2012. The Defendant, from June 12, 2007, is carrying on the business of “F” in the name of “F” while occupying the instant store from June 12, 2007, may be recognized by taking into account all the arguments described in the evidence Nos. 1, 2, 1, 2, 1, 2, and 3.
2. The parties' assertion
A. The Plaintiff’s assertion is the owner of the instant store. The Defendant, the occupant of the said store, must deliver the said store to the Plaintiff, and also return unjust enrichment (the Plaintiff’s total rent of KRW 33,086,80 from December 24, 2012 to June 6, 2013, the acquisition date of the Plaintiff’s ownership, and the monthly rent of KRW 6,138,100 from June 7, 2013 to June 6, 2013) equivalent to the rent that was acquired while occupying and using the said store.
B. The defendant's assertion that the store of this case owned by C is subject to sale through open competitive bidding, while promising to provide money and valuables to I, who is an employee in charge of the above business, in collusion with C, to exclude the participation opportunity of other bidding participants, and the plaintiff independently participated in the above sale procedure and purchased the store of this case upon the failure of the store of this case. The above sale contract is null and void because it constitutes an anti-social legal act that the plaintiff actively participated in the act of occupational breach of trust and obstruction of auction conducted with C employee, and thus, the plaintiff is not the owner of the store of this case, and thus, it cannot respond to the plaintiff's request.
3. The judgment of the defendant asserts the invalidity of the grounds for registration as to the store of this case and asserts the plaintiff's possession of the store of this case. Thus, we examine this.
(a) evidence Nos. 4, 8, 11, Eul No. 1, 9, 12, and Eul.