beta
Text
1. The Defendant (Counterclaim Plaintiff) against the Plaintiff (Counterclaim Defendant)
(a) deliver each building listed in the separate sheet;
(b) 70,959.
Reasons
1. Determination on the main claim
A. The facts of recognition are as follows: (a) on May 30, 2003, the Plaintiff asserted that the 2-dong Plaintiff listed in the attached Table C on the remaining land in Yangyang-si, Namyang-si, Seoul District Court’s government-funded Dbudongdong Triju auction procedure, had a cement block block house 22.98mm2, and the Defendant is in possession of the above building, but there is no evidence to prove the existence of the above building.
Rather, in full view of the results of appraisal of rent for appraiser E and the purport of the whole pleadings, the above building can be recognized as not having existed at present.
The building listed in the attached list No. 1 (hereinafter referred to as “No. 1 building”) refers to “No. 2 building”, and “No. 2 building” was referred to as “the above two buildings,” and the sales price was paid in full with the permission to sell the building, including the above two buildings.
The defendant occupies the building of this case as of the date of closing argument from October 6, 2006.
The level of rent for the instant building from October 6, 2006 to October 5, 2016 is KRW 70,959,530 (=No. 1 building 31,478,290 KRW 39,481,240)
(The details of self-taxation are as stated in the attached Form 2). [Attachment 3-7] without dispute, entry of evidence A 3-7, results of the commission of appraisal of rent to appraiser E, the purport of the whole pleadings.
B. According to the above facts of determination, the Defendant delivered the instant building to the Plaintiff, and the obligation to return unjust enrichment, which contains 70,959,530 won, a rental fee from October 6, 2006 to October 5, 2016, and the purport of the demand notice for performance, is an obligation with no fixed deadline. Thus, the Defendant is liable for delay from the following day after the notice for performance.
As of June 28, 2017, it is clear that the application for amendment of the purport of the instant claim and the cause of the claim is the day following the date on which the duplicate of the application is served to the Defendant (the Plaintiff is claiming damages for delay even during the period from October 6, 2016 to June 27, 2017), but the Defendant is without merit.