beta
Text
1. The Defendant’s KRW 158,400,730, as well as the annual rate of KRW 5% from June 8, 2013 to May 15, 2014.
Reasons
1. Basic facts
A. 1) On April 24, 1998, the Defendant: (a) newly built a row house between the Defendant and its partners; and (b) the process of disputes related thereto; and (c) on April 24, 1998, the Defendant is the Seoul Special Metropolitan City Seoul Special Metropolitan City Metropolitan City 327 square meters and D 198
E, F, and G (F husband) the owner of the E, F, and G (F husband)
B) As regards the instant land, the Defendant entered into a contract with the purport that the Defendant shall newly construct a tenement house at its own expense and sell it in units, and pay the proceeds therefrom or pay the purchase price in the manner that G and F pays a part of the loan borrowed by G and F on the instant land as collateral. Afterwards, the instant apartment house (the instant apartment house was newly built with 17 households on the instant land; hereinafter collectively referred to as “the instant apartment house”) and each house is specified as “O-ho among the instant apartment houses.”
(2) On November 2002, the Defendant completed the instant tenement house, but failed to obtain approval for use due to the illegal grounds ordered by the Gwanak-gu Office to correct, and the enforcement fine was imposed on G, F and E.
3) Accordingly, G and F filed a lawsuit against the Defendant, the contractor for the instant construction of the instant apartment house, the contractor for the instant construction, and the resident of the instant apartment house. As a result, G and F filed a lawsuit against the housing name. As a result, ① the Defendant’s original acquisition of the instant apartment house, ② the Defendant’s obligation to remove the instant apartment house, ③ the Defendant’s obligation to return unjust enrichment, etc., but ④ the Defendant’s claim for eviction against the resident was dismissed (Seoul Central District Court 2003Gahap61257, and the said judgment became final and conclusive August 3, 2005).
In addition, the defendant filed a lawsuit against E to seek the transfer of possession of the instant tenement house and the return of unjust enrichment from possession of the first floor above and the second floor above, etc., and E to the defendant as to the non-performance of obligation under the land sales contract of this case.