logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 서울중앙지방법원 2017.11.15 2017가합536086
청구이의
Text

1. Compulsory execution based on the Seoul High Court Decision 201Na82744 Decided December 18, 2013 by the Defendant’s Plaintiff A and B.

Reasons

1. Facts of recognition;

A. 1) The defendant is the defendant of Jongno-gu Seoul, Jongno-gu, Seoul E to 624.2m of square meters and the F to 53.1m of square meters (hereinafter "the land in this case").

2) Plaintiff A is the owner of the first floor No. 123, which is a sectioned building of “G” (hereinafter “instant building”), which is an aggregate building on the instant land. Plaintiff B is the owner of the first floor No. 117 of the instant building, and Plaintiff C is the owner of the third floor No. 330 of the instant building.

B. Plaintiff A, B, and the Defendant filed a lawsuit against Plaintiff A and B seeking removal of a commercial building owned by the said Plaintiffs, transfer of land, and return of unjust enrichment equivalent to rent, as Seoul Central District Court Decision 2008Gahap5381. On August 17, 2011, the said court rendered a judgment that “Plaintiff A and B removed the part owned by the said Plaintiffs from the instant building, deliver the instant land, and pay unjust enrichment and damages for delay.” 2) The said Plaintiffs appealed as Seoul High Court Decision 2011Na82744 regarding the return of unjust enrichment on December 18, 2013, the said appellate court dismissed the part of the Plaintiff’s claim against Plaintiff A regarding the return of unjust enrichment from the first instance court’s judgment from September 1, 2010 to the date of delivery of the instant land, and ordered the Plaintiff to pay money exceeding KRW 625,587 won, KRW 125,196, KRW 986, KRW 1986, KRW 967.

(hereinafter) The above judgment against Plaintiff A is referred to as “the first judgment,” and the above judgment against Plaintiff B is referred to as “the second judgment”). 3 Plaintiff A and B appealed against the above appellate judgment and appealed by Supreme Court Decision 2014Da10359, but the appeal was dismissed on May 29, 2014.

C. The defendant of the prior suit between the plaintiff C and the defendant

arrow