beta
Text
1. The Plaintiff:
A. The Defendants deliver to the Gyeongcheon-si, Hocheon-do, Sacheon-si, and four lots of F apartment G;
B. Defendant C.
Reasons
1. Facts of recognition;
A. The Plaintiff is the owner of the F apartment G of the land E and four lots (hereinafter “instant apartment”).
B. On November 30, 2018, the Plaintiff leased the instant apartment to Defendant C.
The Plaintiff and Defendant C agreed to deposit KRW 6,750,00, KRW 600 per month, KRW 600,000 per month, and the lease term until November 30, 2019.
C. Defendant C was in arrears for not less than six months, and the Plaintiff terminated the lease contract on April 11, 2019.
Defendant D is the spouse of Defendant C, and is residing in the apartment of this case.
[Reasons for Recognition] The descriptions of Gap (A) No. 12, the purport of the whole pleadings
2. The lease contract concluded between the Plaintiff and Defendant C with respect to the instant apartment was terminated on April 2019 by the Plaintiff’s termination of the contract.
Therefore, Defendant C and his spouse, who reside in the apartment of this case, are obligated to return the apartment of this case to the Plaintiff, and Defendant C is obligated to pay unjust enrichment equivalent to rent.
Therefore, the Defendants are obligated to deliver the apartment of this case to the Plaintiff, and Defendant C is obligated to pay the amount of unjust enrichment equivalent to the rent calculated at the rate of KRW 600,000 per month from June 1, 2019 to the completion date of delivery of the apartment of this case.
The Plaintiff filed a claim against Defendant D for unjust enrichment equivalent to the rent jointly and severally with Defendant C. However, Defendant D is not a lessee, but merely an assistant who has de facto control over the instant apartment based on the household-based relationship, and thus, cannot be deemed as liable to pay unjust enrichment equivalent to rent.
3. The plaintiff's claim against the defendants against the defendants is accepted within the extent of the above recognition, and part of the claim against the defendant D is dismissed as it is without merit.