beta
Text
1. The defendant shall be the plaintiff.
(a) Of the real estate listed in the separate sheet, the Attached Map 1, 2, 3, 4 and 1.
Reasons
The following facts may be acknowledged according to the overall purport of Gap evidence 1 through 4 and the purport of the whole pleadings:
① On March 17, 2010, the Plaintiff leased, to Nonparty C, real estate listed in the separate sheet (hereinafter “instant real estate”) on its own possession, with a deposit of KRW 10 million, monthly rent of KRW 660,000 (including value-added tax), and the lease period from March 17, 2010 to March 16, 2012.
② The Defendant, who had been a partner C, occupied the instant real estate from the time of the conclusion of the contract, and subsequently requested the Plaintiff to conclude a new lease contract under the name of the Defendant on the ground that the contract was rescinded on December 18, 2012, but did not expressly agree on the issue of deposit and rent increase, and did not conclude a lease contract until the date of closing argument.
③ On November 13, 2013, the Defendant remitted KRW 10 million to the Plaintiff. Until that time, the amount that C or the Defendant paid to the Plaintiff was the sum of KRW 371.6 million (including KRW 10 million paid at the time of entering into a contract) and no longer paid thereafter.
④ On November 10, 2014, the Plaintiff notified the Defendant of the intention to withdraw from the instant real estate and to file a criminal complaint as to the forgery of the lease agreement in the name of the Plaintiff, if the Plaintiff did not enter into a lease agreement with the Defendant, including the rental deposit of KRW 15 million, monthly rent of KRW 770,000 (including value-added tax).
According to the above facts, although the Defendant did not separately acquire the right to possess the instant real estate owned by the Plaintiff, it appears that the Defendant occupied the instant real estate under the Plaintiff’s implied consent from November 10, 2014 after remitting KRW 10 million to the Plaintiff, and that the Plaintiff sought the return after expressing his intention not to remain silent any more after November 10, 2014, and thus, the Plaintiff, the owner, must deliver it to the Plaintiff.
Even as the Defendant asserts, the instant case.