beta
Text
1. Defendant B:
A. The attached appraisal marks 1, 2, 3, 4, and 1, among the area of 2,327 square meters before Pyeongtaek-gun, Gyeonggi-do, shall be in order.
Reasons
1. Basic facts
A. On November 5, 2013, the Plaintiff was awarded a successful bid for the instant land in the real estate auction procedure.
B. Defendant B, on October 14, 2002, built the instant building on the instant land and owned it until now after obtaining approval for use.
C. Defendant C Co., Ltd (the first trade name was F, but was changed to C Co., Ltd. on July 2, 2015; hereinafter “C Co., Ltd”) leased the instant building from Defendant B to November 201, 202, and occupied and used the building from November 2002 to November 201, 201.
In addition, Defendant C Co. has accumulated the building materials of this case, which are owned by it on the land of this case.
Defendant D resigned on July 1, 2015 while serving as the representative director of Defendant C Company (not later than March 28, 2013) or in-house director.
E. The rent for the instant land is KRW 3,871,108 from November 11, 2013 to March 28, 2014 (i.e., 2,327 square meters of land area x 110,000 square meters of land base price x 0.04 square meters of land x 138 days/165 days of transfer price x 10,890,400 won from March 29, 2014 to March 28, 2015 (i.e., 907,530 won per month, 2,327 square meters of land x 00,000 square meters x 04 square meters x 004 square meters x x 004 square meters x 004 square meters x 203,04 square meters x 305,294.284/205/205.
[Reasons for Recognition] A’s 1-4 evidence, Gap’s 7 evidence Nos. 8-1, 2, and 3’s evidence No. 8-1, 2, and 3’s image of Gap’s 5, the result of the survey and appraisal of the Korea Cadastral Corporation, the result of the appraisal of rent for appraiser G by this court, the purport of the whole pleadings
2. Judgment on the claim against the defendant B
A. According to the above facts of recognition as to the cause of the claim, Defendant B is obligated to remove the building of this case to the Plaintiff and deliver the land of this case to the Plaintiff, and pay unjust enrichment equivalent to the rent due to the possession of the land of this case.
B. Defendant B’s defense against the defense was owned by the land of this case.