The defendant delivers the building indicated in the attached list to the plaintiff, and from February 27, 2017 to the completion date of delivery of the building.

Facts of recognition

The following facts may be acknowledged either as disputed between the parties or as a whole by taking into account the respective descriptions of Gap evidence Nos. 1, 2, 3, 7, and 8 and the whole purport of pleadings:

The Plaintiff purchased a building listed in the attached list (hereinafter referred to as “instant building”) and completed the registration of ownership transfer on November 25, 2016.

B. The Defendant completed the move-in report on the instant building on December 27, 2016, and occupied and used the instant building from that time.

C. The amount of profit from the possession and use of the building of this case is 250,000 won per month.

The Defendant paid to the Plaintiff a total of KRW 500,000 in return for the occupation and use of the instant building.

2. According to the above facts of determination as to the cause of the claim, the defendant who occupies the building of this case, barring special circumstances, has the duty to deliver the building of this case to the plaintiff who is the owner.

Meanwhile, according to the above facts, the defendant obtained profit equivalent to 250,000 won per month from the occupation and use of the building of this case, thereby causing damage to the plaintiff, and 500,000 won that the defendant paid to the plaintiff constitutes the profit of the second-month use of the building of this case. Thus, barring special circumstances, the defendant is obligated to return to the plaintiff unjust enrichment calculated at the rate of 250,000 won per month from February 27, 2017 to the completion date of delivery of the building of this case from February 27, 2017 to the delivery date of the building of this case, and the plaintiff's claim exceeding the above recognized scope is not accepted.

3. The defendant's argument regarding the defendant's assertion is alleged to have already concluded a lease contract with the plaintiff, but there is no evidence to acknowledge it, and the defendant's argument is rejected.

4. In conclusion, the plaintiff's claim is justified within the above scope of recognition. Thus, the plaintiff's remaining claims are dismissed. It is so decided as per Disposition.