(영문) 서울서부지방법원 2017.02.10 2016나35325

beta

본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.

Text

Reasons

텍스트 조절

글꼴

크기(pt)

굵기

줄 간격

자간(%)

(영문) 서울서부지방법원 2017.02.10 2016나35325

손해배상등

Text

1. The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Defendant.

Purport of claim and appeal

1...

Reasons

1. Facts of recognition;

A. On October 29, 2015, the Plaintiff purchased the first floor No. 122 of the building No. 1 (hereinafter “instant real estate”) from the Gu Government District Court C auction (hereinafter “instant auction procedure”) and paid the sale price, and acquired ownership.

B. On April 29, 2014, the Defendant leased the instant real estate from the former owner D with a deposit of KRW 50 million, and the period from July 31, 2014 to 24 months.

(hereinafter “instant lease agreement”). C.

In accordance with the instant lease agreement, while the Defendant occupied and used the instant real estate, the instant auction procedure commenced, the Defendant filed a lien report (a lien based on the construction price of KRW 51 million for interior works, such as waterproof and flooring construction works on the instant real estate) in the auction procedure, and the Plaintiff occupied and used the instant real estate after acquiring the ownership thereof.

On December 9, 2015, the Plaintiff was handed over the instant real estate through the delivery execution of real estate on January 28, 2015, upon receiving an order for the delivery of real estate from the Defendant (Ji Government District Court E).

E. After July 2013, the Plaintiff paid KRW 6,708,640 on the instant real estate in arrears management expenses.

[Grounds for recognition] The items of evidence Nos. 1 to 9, and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination

A. According to the above facts, the defendant obtained profits by occupying and using the ownership of the real estate in this case even after acquiring the ownership of the real estate in this case, and suffered losses equivalent to the above amount. The defendant has a duty to return the amount of unjust enrichment equivalent to the rent to the plaintiff, barring special circumstances. 2) Furthermore, the calculation of the amount equivalent to the rent to be refunded to the defendant is based on the so-called hostile law, which multiplies the basic price of the real estate in this calculation of the rent to be refunded to the defendant, and is by the expected interest rate.

유사 판례

-제주지방법원 2019.05.02 2017가단63391

-대전지방법원 2016.04.14 2015가단212913

-창원지방법원 2015.11.03 2015가단6800

-서울북부지방법원 2019.12.05 2018가합24442

-서울서부지방법원 2016.09.08 2016나329