logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
Text
Reasons
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 대구지방법원안동지원 2016.08.10 2016가단1885
건물명도등
Text

1. The defendant shall be the plaintiff.

(a) deliver the buildings listed in the separate sheet;

(b) from January 18, 2016 to the annexed list.

Reasons

1. The phrase “Yan Dong-si D” described in the evidence No. 1 and No. 5 of the facts of recognition A shall be deemed to be a clerical error in “Yan Dong-si E”.

Comprehensively taking into account the purport of the entire pleadings, the Defendant entered into a lease agreement with C on July 21, 2014 on the lease deposit of KRW 10 million, KRW 500,000 for one year from the date of entering into the lease agreement, KRW 600,000 for one year from the date of entering into the lease agreement, and KRW 600,000 for one year from the date of entering into the lease agreement, and occupied and used without paying rent, and the Plaintiff purchased the instant building from C on November 5, 2015 and completed the registration of ownership transfer on January 18, 2016.

2. Determination

A. According to the above facts, the Defendant, the possessor of the instant building, is obligated to deliver the instant building to the Plaintiff, who is the owner of the instant building, and to return unjust enrichment equivalent to the rent calculated by the ratio of KRW 600,000 per month from January 18, 2016, which the Plaintiff acquired ownership of the instant building, to the completion date of delivery of the instant building.

B. The Plaintiff seek unjust enrichment in proportion to KRW 550,00 per month from July 22, 2014 to July 21, 2015, and KRW 650,00 per month from July 22, 2015 to July 22, 2015.

However, even before January 18, 2016, the Plaintiff acquired ownership of the instant building, there is no legal basis to acknowledge that the Defendant has the right to claim the return of unjust enrichment equivalent to the rent or rent (this refers to the right against the Defendant who is the former owner and the lessor) and there is no evidence to support that the Plaintiff is KRW 650,000 per month, exceeding KRW 60,000 per month from January 18, 2016.

Therefore, Article 2-A.

The plaintiff's assertion that exceeds the scope of recognition of paragraph is without merit.

3. Accordingly, the plaintiff's claim of this case is justified within the scope of the above recognition, and it is accepted and remainder.

arrow