beta
Text
1. Compulsory execution against the Defendant’s Plaintiff by the Seoul Western District Court Decision 2010Kadan79636 Decided August 9, 201.
Reasons
1. Basic facts
A. On August 21, 2002, the Defendant: (a) sold KRW 143,079,100, Seo-gu, Seoul, Seo-gu, Seoul, a 621m2m2 (hereinafter “instant officetel”) from the KAWAS on August 21, 2002; and (b) paid the sales price in full around that time; (c) however, the Defendant did not acquire ownership by delay due to the performance of the obligation to transfer ownership due to the cause, such as forced commencement of sale due to the failure of the KAWS to pay the construction price, and (d) did not acquire ownership by delay, the Defendant’s right to manage the instant officetel lease, etc.
B. On June 17, 2010, the Plaintiff leased the instant officetel from D as three months from June 30, 2010 to September 29, 2010, the period of which is 1.1 million won per month from September 29, 2010. The Plaintiff agreed to renew the contract by way of advance payment for three months and 3.3 million won per month even after the expiration of the three-month period, and began to reside in the instant officetel from June 30, 2010.
However, around that time, the Plaintiff did not pay the phrase that “the Defendant or D has no legitimate right to lease because it was unable to acquire ownership” from a related party to the Dispute Resolution Co., Ltd., and did not pay D after September 30, 2010. On September 30, 2010, the Plaintiff entered into a contract with the Dispute Resolution Co., Ltd. to lease the instant officetel from September 30, 2010 to KRW 20 million without rent and continued to reside.
C. Accordingly, D notified the Plaintiff that the lease contract is terminated, and the Defendant filed a lawsuit against the Plaintiff on December 14, 2010, claiming the return of unjust enrichment equivalent to the rent calculated by the ratio of KRW 1.1 million per month from September 30, 2010 to September 30, 2010, without obtaining a decision on the provisional injunction for the transfer of possession.
Accordingly, the plaintiff demanded a resolution of the problem to the KAB T&S, who is in charge of responding to the lawsuit, and did not attend at all on the date of pleading of the above case, and on May 11, 201.