beta
Text
1. The defendant's appeal is dismissed.
2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Defendant.
Purport of claim and appeal
1...
Reasons
1. Basic facts
A. On July 23, 2014, the Plaintiff acquired ownership by selling a building listed in the [Attachment List (hereinafter “instant house”) owned by the Defendant Defendant C at an auction procedure for exercising the security right (U.S. District Court Sungnam Branch D).
B. On September 4, 2014, the Plaintiff received an order to deliver real estate to the Defendant (U.S. District Court Sungnam Branch Branch E) on March 25, 2015, and received the instant housing through its enforcement.
[Reasons for Recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1, Gap evidence 4-1, Gap evidence 6-1, Gap evidence 9 and the purport of the whole pleadings
2. Assertion and determination
A. The Plaintiff’s assertion that the Defendant: (a) occupied the instant house from July 23, 2014 to March 25, 2015, which was the date of delivery and execution of the instant house; (b) prevented the Plaintiff from using the said house by unlawful means, such as claiming an unfair lien or establishing goods; and (c) thereby, causing damage equivalent to the rent to the Plaintiff.
Therefore, the defendant should compensate the plaintiff for 4.9 million won (=700,000 won monthly rent x 7 months).
B. The defendant's assertion that he/she had never left and resided in the house of this case around December 31, 2013.
C. According to the overall purport of Gap evidence Nos. 2, 3, Gap evidence Nos. 4-1, 5-1, 6-1, and Eul evidence Nos. 1, and Eul evidence Nos. 1, the defendant, in the auction procedure of the house of this case, reported not only the right of lease but also the right of retention, and it appears that the plaintiff acquired the ownership of the house of this case and received an order to deliver real estate against the defendant was the defendant's continued possession of the house of this case. The reason why the execution of the above order to deliver real estate was delayed is that the defendant asserted the right of retention and filed an appeal against the above order to deliver real estate. At the time of execution of the above order to deliver real estate, the house of this case was temporarily set and within this.