beta
Text
1. All of the plaintiffs' claims are dismissed.
2. The costs of lawsuit are assessed against the plaintiffs.
Reasons
1. Basic facts
A. On February 29, 2012, the Plaintiffs entered into a lease agreement (hereinafter “instant lease agreement”) with the Defendant on the condition that the period from February 29, 2012 to February 28, 2014, the deposit KRW 150,000,000, monthly rent of KRW 3,500,000 (as of February 28, 2013, the monthly rent of KRW 300,000) would be paid respectively on the 29th day of each month.
Plaintiff
A, on January 7, 2010, the lease agreement entered into with the Defendant alone, appears to have been renewed by the Plaintiffs jointly with the Defendant.
B. The Defendant filed a lawsuit against the Plaintiff A seeking return of unjust enrichment equivalent to the rent calculated at the rate of KRW 15,00,000 per month from March 1, 2014 to the completion date of the order of the instant building from March 1, 2014. On November 26, 2014, the said court rendered a judgment that “the Defendant (the Plaintiff of this case) ordered the Plaintiff (the Plaintiff of this case) to order the instant building and pay the Plaintiff KRW 8,00,000 per month from March 1, 2014 to March 1, 2014.”
Accordingly, both the Defendant and the Plaintiff A filed a counterclaim at the appellate court. The said appellate court (Seoul Eastern District Court 2015Na16, 2015Na2425 (Counterclaim)) (Seoul Eastern District Court 2015Na16, 2015Na2425)) declared on October 30, 2015 that "the Defendant (the Plaintiff A) ordered the Plaintiff (the Defendant) to order the Plaintiff to build the instant building, and to pay the amount calculated at the rate of KRW 34,300,000 and KRW 13,50,000 per month from October 1, 2015 to the completion date of the instant commercial name (hereinafter referred to as "the first judgment of this case"). The remaining main lawsuit of the Plaintiff (the Defendant) and the Defendant (the Plaintiff A)’s counterclaim were dismissed, and the judgment of the appellate court became final and conclusive on February 18, 2016 (hereinafter referred to as "the judgment of this case").
The above 34,300.