beta
Text
1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.
2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Plaintiff.
Purport of claim and appeal
The first instance court.
Reasons
1. Basic facts
A. The Plaintiff completed the move-in report on March 19, 2012 and resided in the Gangnam-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government C Apartment 101 Dong 1406 (hereinafter “instant apartment”).
B. On August 26, 2015, the Defendant completed the registration of the establishment of a neighboring apartment in the instant case with the amount of KRW 240,000,000 on the debtor's Han Agricultural Partnership Co., Ltd. and the maximum debt amount.
C. On April 7, 2016, pursuant to the application for the commencement of the voluntary auction procedure by the Bank of Korea, Co., Ltd., a senior mortgagee of the apartment of the instant apartment, the auction procedure was initiated (Seoul Northern Northern District Court D; hereinafter “instant auction procedure”), and the Plaintiff asserted that he/she is a small lessee in the instant auction procedure, but did not receive a dividend on the date of distribution.
[Reasons for Recognition] No. 3-1 and No. 2
2. Determination as to the cause of action
A. Although the Plaintiff was in the position of small-sum lessee who paid the lease deposit of KRW 10,00,000 to B, the Plaintiff unfairly failed to receive dividends on the date of distribution of the instant auction procedure, the Plaintiff asserts that the Defendant should return the amount equivalent to the deposit to the Plaintiff as unjust enrichment.
B. The Plaintiff completed the move-in report on March 19, 2012 and resided in the instant apartment, as seen earlier. According to the evidence No. 1, it is recognized that the lease agreement (hereinafter “instant lease agreement”) was made on June 20, 2012, stating that the Plaintiff leased one square column from the instant apartment from B to KRW 10,000,000, among the instant apartment.
However, the following circumstances, which are acknowledged by comprehensively taking account of the evidence mentioned above, Eul's evidence No. 1 and the overall purport of oral argument, have not been concluded between the plaintiff and the defendant who investigated the collateral value of the apartment of this case on August 26, 2015.