beta
Text
1. All of the plaintiff's claims are dismissed.
2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.
Reasons
1. The plaintiff's assertion
A. From February 2, 2012 to January 5, 2014, the Plaintiff owned the first underground floor parking lot (hereinafter “instant parking lot”) of the building A (hereinafter “instant building”). During the said period, the Defendant had been aware that the Plaintiff was the owner of the instant parking lot, but without any form of parking lot management or service contract between the Plaintiff and the Plaintiff without permission, owned the pertinent parking lot at will while managing the instant parking lot.
B. Therefore, the Defendant is obligated to pay the Plaintiff the total of KRW 64,244,533 of the parking lot profit and KRW 10,000,000 of the consolation lot profit, which the Plaintiff could have obtained as a return of damages or unjust enrichment due to the tort, and the damages for delay.
2. In light of the overall purport of the pleadings in each of the statements in Eul evidence Nos. 1 through 3, 5, 6, 7, 9, and 10 (including the number of branch numbers), the defendant entered into an entrustment contract with the defendant, who is the management body of the building of this case, concerning the management, management, facilities, expenses, and the US building management of the building of this case, and it is recognized that the defendant, who is not the defendant, has kept profits from the parking lot of this case. As long as the defendant entered into the management contract with the defendant, who is the management body of the building of this case, and was engaged in the management of the parking lot of this case, it is difficult to conclude that the management affairs of the parking lot of this case of this case by the defendant against the plaintiff, as long as the defendant was aware that he was the owner of the parking lot of this case, it is difficult to view that the management affairs of the parking lot of this case by the defendant was a tort against the plaintiff, and it is difficult to view that the defendant obtained unjust profits from the parking lot as much.
3. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed as it is without merit.