logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 수원지방법원성남지원 2019.05.17 2018가단215045
부당이득금
Text

1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

Reasons

1. On the premise that the Defendant occupied the real estate listed in the separate sheet (hereinafter “instant real estate”) from March 28, 2018 to August 9, 2018, which is the date of expropriation, the Plaintiff sought a return of unjust enrichment equivalent to the rent during the said period.

Each statement of evidence Nos. 2, 7, and 10 (including virtual numbers, hereinafter the same shall apply) is insufficient to recognize that the Defendant continued to use and benefit from the instant real estate beyond the fact that the Defendant refused to transfer the instant real estate during the aforementioned period and gained substantial profits from the Defendant’s continuous use of and benefit from the instant real estate during the said period. The Plaintiff asserted that the Defendant used and profit from the instant real estate until the aforementioned date, since the confirmation of the official inspection was made on August 9, 2018. However, according to each statement of evidence Nos. 7 and 10, it is difficult to recognize that the official inspection of the entire building was completed on August 9, 2018. Accordingly, it is difficult to find that the Defendant continued to use and benefit from the instant real estate until that time.

There is no evidence to prove otherwise.

(O) According to the evidence evidence Nos. 1 through 4, the defendant continued to pay the management expenses for the apartment at the place where he had resided from January 31, 2018, and completed the move-in report on July 10, 2018. In light of the above, the defendant's director at the present place of residence around January 2018, which was before the move-in report was made, could have suspended the use of and profit from the real estate of this case since that time. The evidence submitted by the plaintiff alone cannot be rejected). 2. The conclusion of the claim of this case is dismissed as it is so decided as per Disposition.

arrow