beta
Text
1. The Defendant: (a) KRW 5,712,00 for the Plaintiff and KRW 5% per annum from May 21, 2016 to October 20, 2016; and (b) the Plaintiff.
Reasons
1. On July 19, 2013, the Plaintiff determined the cause of the claim is the owner who was awarded a successful bid for the instant real estate (Yongyang-gu, Yongsan-gu, Busan Metropolitan City C, No. 33) and completed the registration of ownership transfer.
Around December 2010, the Defendant entered into a lease agreement with D, who is the former owner of the instant real estate, setting the lease agreement as KRW 3 million per month and KRW 3.5 million per month. However, the Defendant did not obtain a fixed date in the said lease agreement, and did not participate in the auction procedure regarding the instant real estate as a creditor.
The Defendant, upon receiving the complaint from the Plaintiff, arranged a store operated on the instant real estate and completed the return on May 20, 2016.
The amount equivalent to the rent between July 2013 and May 2015 is KRW 168,000 per month.
[Reasons for Recognition] According to the facts without dispute, Gap 1, 2, Gap 5, and 12 evidence, and the purport of the whole pleadings, the defendant is obligated to return unjust enrichment equivalent to the rent due to possession to the plaintiff who is the owner of the real estate of this case.
Therefore, the amount of the rent is KRW 168,00 per month from July 2013 to May 2015, and is confirmed to be the same amount thereafter. Therefore, when calculating it, the amount equivalent to the rent for 34 months from July 19, 2013 to May 20, 2016 shall be 5,72,838 won (=168,00 won x 34 months x 2/31 day).
2. The Defendant asserts that the Defendant paid, on behalf of the Plaintiff, management expenses (total management expenses of KRW 5,413,140 from February 2, 2013 to May 2016) imposed on the instant real estate. This is to determine that the Defendant offsets the management expenses paid by the Defendant against the Plaintiff’s claim for return of unjust enrichment.
In full view of the overall purport of the arguments in Gap evidence Nos. 9, 10, 13, 15, 16, and 1 and 7, the defendant leased and used the real estate of this case from Eul, and the auction procedure started.