beta
Text
1. The Defendant: (a) KRW 23.8 million to the Plaintiff and the Plaintiff’s 5% per annum from March 23, 2017 to October 26, 2018.
Reasons
1. Basic facts
A. The Plaintiff is the owner of the C apartment D (hereinafter “instant real estate”) in Si interesting City.
E is a licensed real estate agent who has operated a real estate brokerage office under the trade name of “F,” and “E” was a mother of E.
B. The Plaintiff requested G to mediate a monthly rent lease agreement on the instant real estate. While G forged a lease agreement in the name of the Plaintiff to lease the instant real estate with H and the instant real estate amounting to KRW 50 million, G provided a lease agreement on August 1, 2012, that the instant real estate was leased to I in the intermediation of E and KRW 5 million in the lease deposit and KRW 400,000 in the rent monthly rent.
C. On January 11, 2018, G was indicted for committing an offense, such as by deceiving KRW 50 million under the name of the Plaintiff by forging or exercising a lease contract under the name of the Plaintiff, and by forging and using a monthly rent lease contract under the name of the Plaintiff, and by using it to the Plaintiff, G was sentenced to imprisonment with prison labor for six months on January 11, 2018.
(U.S. District Court 2017 Highest 7846). D.
The Plaintiff filed a lawsuit against H for the delivery of the instant real estate and the claim for unjust enrichment (U.S. District Court Decision 2016Kadan6075), and in the instant case, H had the right to conclude a lease agreement with G, and at the same time had the obligation to return the instant real estate from the Plaintiff to the Plaintiff, as the lease agreement entered into between the Plaintiff and G was valid. However, the Plaintiff argued that H had the obligation to deliver the instant real estate at the same time. The Plaintiff paid KRW 34 million to H until December 20, 2016, and H received the said money and received the said money (hereinafter referred to as “decision of recommending reconciliation”). At that time, the Plaintiff became final and conclusive.