beta
Text
1. The defendant,
A. As to the Plaintiff B, C, and each of the said amounts of KRW 258,966 and each of the said amounts, from October 4, 2007 to August 21, 2015.
Reasons
1. Basic facts
A. On December 6, 2006, the network H died after having left the Defendant, both Plaintiff A and his children, the spouse of the Plaintiff and the Defendant, who were South Korea, B, D, E, and F.
B. On June 10, 2008, Plaintiff A, C, E, and I filed a claim for an adjudication on the division of inherited property against Defendant, Plaintiff D, and F with Seoul Family Court Decision 2008Rahap109. On September 7, 2011, the appellate court of the instant case (Seoul High Court Decision 2011B3) rendered a decision to divide each of the real estate listed in the separate sheet among inherited property as indicated in the separate sheet. This decision was dismissed and finalized as it is, on January 10, 2012.
[Reasons for Recognition] Unsatisfy, Gap evidence 1, 2, and 3
2. Determination on the cause of the claim
A. The fact that the real estate listed in the [Attachment 17] No. 17 in the annexed list No. 17 of the plaintiff A’s claim (hereinafter “the instant officetel”) was the sole ownership of the plaintiff A due to the confirmation of the inherited property division trial, as seen earlier. The fact that the defendant entered into a lease agreement with the J on September 14, 2007 that leases the instant officetel with the monthly rent of KRW 800,000,000,000, which was before the judgment on the division of inherited property becomes final and conclusive, is that
(2) On the premise of the absence of the dispute at issue, Plaintiff A asserted that the Defendant received KRW 4,80,000 for six-month rent from October 2007 to March 2008, and that the Defendant received KRW 328,510, which is a part of the monthly rent from April 2008 to December 201, and without any legal cause, received KRW 14,782,950, which is a part of the monthly rent.
As to this, the Defendant recognized that the J received rent of KRW 2,10,270 from October 2007 to March 2008, and KRW 13,700,000 from April 2008 to December 201, 201. However, the amount in excess is paid directly by the J to the Plaintiff, etc. at the request of the Plaintiffs, and the fact that the J received rent of KRW 15,810,270.
(3) According to the reasoning of the judgment below, Gap evidence 8-1 and 2, and the fact-finding results with respect to the national bank, J.