beta
Text
1. Defendant C and E shall jointly and severally serve as the party to the lawsuit and the selector from October 8, 2018 to the final and conclusive date of this judgment.
Reasons
1. Facts of recognition;
A. On October 2, 2018, the Plaintiff (Appointed) and the Appointed acquired each co-ownership share of the real estate listed in the separate sheet (hereinafter “instant real estate”) through a voluntary auction on October 2, 2018, and completed the registration thereof on October 8, 2018. Accordingly, the Plaintiff (Appointed Party) and the Appointed and the Defendants shared the instant real estate in proportion to their shares listed in the separate sheet.
B. Defendant C and E have resided in the instant real estate since October 2, 2018.
C. Meanwhile, as a result of the appraisal of rent for the instant real estate on October 2, 2018, an amount equivalent to the aggregate of 2/15 of the shares of the Plaintiff (Appointed Party) and the selected parties among the assessed monthly rent for the instant real estate after October 2, 2018 is KRW 312,00.
[Ground] Facts without dispute: Gap 1 to 5 evidence, Eul 1 to 3 evidence, and the purport of whole pleadings
2. Determination:
A. According to the above facts as to the claim for return of unjust enrichment against Defendant C and E, Defendant C and E, who jointly occupies and uses the instant real estate, jointly uses another’s property without any legal cause, are indivisible obligations for return of unjust enrichment, barring any special circumstances, and indivisible obligations are indivisible obligations. Each obligor is obligated to perform the entire obligation, and the other obligor is also exempted from its obligation upon the performance of one obligor’s obligation (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2000Da13948, Dec. 11, 2001). As the return of unjust enrichment from the possession and use of the instant real estate, the Plaintiff (Appointed Party) and the appointed party are obligated to return money calculated in the proportion of KRW 312,00,00 from October 8, 2018 to this judgment becomes final and conclusive.
The defendant C and E have no obligation to return unjust enrichment because they are used free of charge with the consent of a majority share, but they have a majority share in common property.