beta
Text
1. All appeals by the Defendants are dismissed.
2. The costs of appeal are assessed against the Defendants.
Purport of claim and appeal
1.
Reasons
There is no dispute between the parties, or in full view of the purport of the entire pleadings in the statement No. 1, it can be acknowledged that the part of the building owned by the Plaintiff is possessed by the Defendants of the second floor 54.66 square meters (hereinafter “the part of the building of this case”) among the buildings listed in the separate sheet owned by the Plaintiff, barring any special circumstance, the Defendants are obligated to deliver the part
The Defendants asserted to the effect that the part of the building in this case is not an unauthorized occupant because they first occupy the building in this case as the manager, but it is not a person who occupies the building in this case, and it cannot be viewed as a legitimate title to possess the above part. Thus, the Defendants’ assertion on this part is without merit.
Next, on June 25, 2010, the Defendants: (a) leased the Eunpyeong-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government FF and 403 from the Plaintiff to the lease deposit amount of KRW 5 million; (b) from June 30, 2010 to June 29, 2012; (c) paid KRW 5 million to the Plaintiff; (d) the Plaintiff entrusted the Plaintiff with the management of the Plaintiff’s real estate; and (e) the Plaintiff could not respond to the Plaintiff’s claim before receiving the refund of KRW 5 million; (b) in this case, the Plaintiff and the Defendants concluded a lease agreement on the instant building; and (c) there was no assertion as to the fact that the Plaintiff and the Defendants would substitute for the payment of the lease deposit; and (e) there was no simultaneous performance relation between the return of the said KRW 5 million and the delivery relation of the instant building. Therefore, the Defendants’ assertion that there was no simultaneous performance relation is without merit.
Therefore, the plaintiff's claim against the defendants is justified, and the judgment of the court of first instance is just and there is no ground for appeal by the defendants.