logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 춘천지방법원원주지원 2015.08.27 2015가합5336
부당이득금
Text

1. The defendant shall pay to the plaintiffs the amount of money stated in the "amount of unjust enrichment" as stated in the attached Table, and as from June 17, 2015.

Reasons

1. Facts of recognition;

A. Large-si Comprehensive Construction Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “Large-si Comprehensive Construction”) constructed Tae-si and 12-15 L apartments on the surface of the 4rd land (hereinafter “instant rental apartment”) for the purpose of lease with the funding from the National Housing Fund.

(1) ① Sale area 78.99 square meters and exclusive use area 59.95 square meters: 491 households, ② Sale area 52.48 square meters and exclusive use area 39.83 square meters: 146 households).

On October 29, 2001, the Defendant was established by dividing the rental apartment from the large comprehensive construction, and succeeded to all rights and obligations of the large comprehensive construction on the sales contract of the rental apartment of this case.

(hereinafter referred to as the “Defendant,” regardless of whether before or after the comprehensive construction and the succession of the above rights and obligations to the Defendant.

In around 200, the Plaintiffs leased each apartment unit indicated in the “Dong-ho” column of the attached Table among the leased apartment units in this case from the Defendant (hereinafter “each apartment unit sale contract in this case”) and paid each purchase price to the Defendant by setting the amount indicated in the “sale price” column of the attached Table between August 24, 2005 and November 11, 2005 after the lapse of the mandatory lease period of five years.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Eul's statements in Gap evidence 1 through 7 (including branch numbers if there are serial numbers; hereinafter the same shall apply), the fact inquiry conducted on April 10, 2015 in the inner market, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The summary of the plaintiffs' assertion had been calculated on the basis of construction costs actually put in accordance with the standards prescribed by the relevant statutes, such as the Enforcement Decree and the Enforcement Rule of the Rental Housing Act when entering into each of the instant sales contracts (the amount stated on the “justifiable pre-sale conversion price” as stated in the attached Table shall be deemed to constitute each money if calculated pursuant to this), but the pre-sale conversion price exceeding the amount calculated pursuant to the above statutes should be

arrow