(영문) 수원지방법원 2016.06.01 2015가단111255

beta

본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.

Text

Reasons

텍스트 조절

글꼴

크기(pt)

굵기

줄 간격

자간(%)

(영문) 수원지방법원 2016.06.01 2015가단111255

토지인도

Text

1. The Defendant shall deliver the real estate listed in the separate sheet to the Plaintiff A, and shall be listed in the separate sheet from February 13, 2015.

Reasons

1. Facts of recognition;

A. On August 29, 2013, Plaintiff ES ES Electronic Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “Plaintiff”) concluded a lease agreement with C on the condition that the lease term of the apartment as indicated in the separate sheet owned by it (hereinafter “instant apartment”) is one year from August 30, 2013, and that the rent of KRW 20 million should be paid in advance without the lease deposit, and the said money was received from C on the same day and delivered the instant apartment to C.

B. C, despite the expiration of the above term of lease, did not pay a new one-year rental fee of KRW 20 million or deliver the instant apartment to the Plaintiff Company.

C. From August 28, 2013, the Defendant is residing in the instant apartment from around August 28, 2013.

Plaintiff

A purchased the instant apartment from the Plaintiff Company and completed the registration of ownership transfer on February 13, 2015.

[Reasons for Recognition] The fact that there is no dispute, entry of Gap evidence 1 to 3 (including a branch number, if any) and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination

A. According to the fact that the delivery of the instant apartment and the obligation to return unjust enrichment was established, the Defendant is obligated to deliver the instant apartment to the Plaintiff A upon the Plaintiff’s claim for removal of interference based on the Plaintiff’s ownership, unless there is no legitimate title to possess the instant apartment.

Furthermore, without any legal ground, the defendant gains profit equivalent to the use profit of the apartment of this case while occupying it. Accordingly, the plaintiff company and the present owner of the apartment of this case, who are the former owner of the apartment of this case, suffered a loss equivalent to the same amount from the plaintiffs according to the use profit period and the ownership period of the apartment of this case. Thus, the amount equivalent to the use profit of this case shall be returned to the plaintiffs as unjust enrichment.

As to this, the defendant is about the apartment of this case around July 2013 with the lessee C of the apartment of this case.

유사 판례

-서울북부지방법원 2021.04.22 2020가단114884

-수원지방법원안양지원 2016.09.07 2015가단111479

-서울중앙지방법원 2016.12.21 2016가단5199

-광주지방법원 2015.02.04 2014가단509953

-창원지방법원통영지원 2015.05.28 2014가합1948