beta
Text
1. The Defendant’s delivery to the Plaintiff of KRW 13,176,00 and from August 27, 2016 to August 8, 2002.
Reasons
Facts of recognition
Attached Form
Although the real estate indicated in the list (hereinafter “instant real estate”) was owned by the Defendant A, the Plaintiff acquired the ownership of the instant real estate on March 12, 2014 after the successful bid of the instant real estate through a compulsory auction procedure by Seoul Western District Court B.
The Plaintiff claimed that the Defendant deliver the instant real estate to the Defendant through the Seoul Western District Court 2015Kadan27166 case. The Defendant asserted that the instant real estate was the owner of the instant real estate, and that the Defendant could not deliver the instant real estate before the refund of the lease deposit was made, but the Seoul Western District Court 2015Kadan27166 case did not accept the Defendant’s defense on the ground that the lease agreement concluded between A and C constitutes a false declaration of intention, according to the facts acknowledged by the Full Panel Division of the Seoul Western District Court 2015Kadan27166 case.
Even in the case of the Seoul Western District Court 2016Na35127 that the Defendant appealed and pending before the Defendant, the Defendant raised a defense to the same effect as the court of first instance, but the Defendant’s appeal was dismissed on the same ground as the judgment of the court of first instance. On November 29, 2016, the Seoul Western District Court 2015Kadan27166, which was the judgment of the court of first instance, became final and conclusive as it is.
The rent of the instant real estate from March 12, 2014 to March 11, 2016 is KRW 8,778,00, and the rent from March 12, 2016 to August 26, 2016 is KRW 4,398,00, and the monthly rent for the instant real estate as of August 26, 2016 is KRW 802,00.
[Grounds for recognition] A-1-8 evidence, appraiser D’s appraisal of rent, assertion of the purport of the entire pleadings, and the Plaintiff’s assertion of the parties to judgment, as the Defendant illegally occupied the instant real estate, are asserting that the Plaintiff should return the rent after March 12, 2014, which acquired the ownership of the instant real estate, as unjust enrichment.