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. The reasoning of this court’s judgment citing the judgment of the court of first instance is as follows, except for the addition of the following “2. Additional Judgment” as to the assertion that the Plaintiff emphasizes in this court, and thus, the same is acceptable pursuant to the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.
(The grounds for appeal by the Plaintiff do not differ significantly from the allegations in the first instance trial, and even if considering the evidence submitted by the Plaintiff to this court, it is deemed legitimate to find facts in the first instance court and make a determination thereof). 2. Additional determination Plaintiff: (a) from April 20, 2015, the Plaintiff obtained unjust enrichment equivalent to the rent by occupying and using the instant store from April 20, 2015 at least by occupying and using the instant store by means of the Defendant’s device for correction in the instant store
“The Defendant appears to have attached the correction device to the instant store in line with the Plaintiff’s attachment of the correction device, and according to the purport of the entire pleadings, the Defendant could have left part of the goods at the instant store.
However, since the benefit in return of unjust enrichment on the ground that the benefit without any legal ground refers to the substantial benefit, in case where the lessee continued to possess the leased building part after the lease contract relationship was terminated, but it was not realized as it was not used or profit-making according to the original purpose of the lease contract, even if the damage was incurred to the lessor, the lessee’s obligation to return unjust enrichment is not established. This is the same even if the lessee did not use or profit-making the leased building part due to the lessee’s circumstances, or the lessee did not take out his own facility (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 98Da8554, Jul. 10, 1998). Such a legal principle equally applies to the case of this case relating to the cancellation
We examine the above legal principles.