logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 부산지방법원 2018.11.01 2017가단337884
부당이득금
Text

1. The Defendant shall pay to the Plaintiff KRW 39,340,00 and the interest rate of KRW 15% per annum from December 27, 2017 to the date of full payment.

Reasons

1. Facts of recognition;

(1) The instant building was owned by D. On September 2013, Busan District Court E compulsory sale of real estate and F real estate auction (joint sale of real estate). On July 27, 2017, the Plaintiff purchased the instant building at the instant auction procedure, and completed the registration of ownership transfer in the Plaintiff’s name on the instant land and building on July 27, 2017.

B. The Defendant completed the provisional attachment entry registration with the claim amounting to KRW 710 million on May 10, 2013 with respect to the instant land and buildings, based on D’s claim of KRW 710,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000.

• After the successful bid of the instant land and building, the Plaintiff applied for an order to deliver real estate against the Defendant to Busan District Court I on September 1, 2017 on the ground that the Defendant occupied H hotel (hereinafter “instant hotel”) in the fourth or eighth floor of the instant building without a legitimate title. On November 17, 2017, the Plaintiff completed the execution of delivery of real estate with respect to the instant hotel under the above court’s order to deliver real estate.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1-1, 2, Gap evidence 3, and 4, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Judgment on the ground of the Plaintiff’s claim

A. The Plaintiff asserts that the Plaintiff’s assertion: (a) from July 27, 2017, the Plaintiff claimed the return of unjust enrichment equivalent to the rent on the ground that the Defendant occupied and used the instant hotel without legitimate authority from July 17, 2017, when the delivery of the instant hotel was completed to the Defendant; (b) on the grounds that the Defendant occupied and used the instant hotel without legitimate authority.

The defendant leased the hotel from D, the former owner of the building of this case, and sublet it to J again, the hotel of this case is J.

arrow