beta
Text
1. The Defendant shall deliver to the Plaintiff the real estate indicated in the attached list, and deliver the said real estate from October 1, 2017.
Reasons
1. Facts of recognition;
A. On December 5, 2015, the Plaintiff entered into a lease agreement with D, the owner of the real estate listed in the separate sheet (hereinafter “instant apartment”) to lease the said apartment from February 1, 2016 to January 2018, the lease deposit amount of KRW 10 million, annual rent of KRW 12 million.
B. The Defendant, without the Plaintiff’s consent, occupied and used the instant apartment from October 1, 2017 to the present day.
C. On October 1, 2017, the Plaintiff is required from D to pay the overdue charge corresponding to the overdue portion and to deliver the instant apartment after the expiration of the lease term.
【Ground of recognition】 The fact that there has been no dispute, entry of Gap Nos. 1, 2, 4, and 5, and the purport of the whole pleadings
2. Determination
A. According to the above facts of recognition, the defendant is obligated to deliver the apartment of this case to the plaintiff as an illegal occupant, and to pay unjust enrichment equivalent to the rent of KRW 1 million per month from October 1, 2017 to the above delivery date, as the plaintiff seeks.
B. On this point, the Defendant asserted that the instant apartment was leased with money by the Defendant’s words living together with the Defendant, and that it merely prepared a lease contract on the instant apartment under the Plaintiff’s name due to the circumstances of C, and thus, it cannot accept the Plaintiff’s claim. However, even if, as the Defendant’s assertion, C was first leased the instant apartment with C’s funds, there is no evidence to acknowledge that C actually leased the instant apartment in relation to D, or C or the Defendant had a right to use the instant apartment after October 1, 2017. Rather, as seen earlier, as seen earlier, the Plaintiff, a lessee, was requested to pay the overdue rent corresponding to the portion after October 1, 2017 from D, the lessor and the owner, and thus, the Plaintiff is a claim for the removal of interference based on the right to lease.