beta
Text
1. The Plaintiff:
(a) Defendant C shall have all the strata of the real estate listed in the separate sheet No. 1:
B. Defendant D shall list the annexed sheet No. 1.
Reasons
1. The cause of the claim is as shown in the annexed sheet;
2. Grounds for recognition;
A. Defendant C, D, E, F, and I have no dispute, each entry in Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 9, the purport of the whole pleadings, and Defendant D, I, and I, shall receive the lease deposit from the plaintiff.
The Defendants are obligated to pay the remainder of money calculated by deducting the amount equivalent to the rent from the lease deposit from December 8, 2017 to the delivery date of the instant real estate, as the Plaintiff occupied the instant real estate from December 8, 2017 to obtain the ownership of the instant real estate due to the expropriation. Thus, barring any special circumstance, the Plaintiff is obligated to pay the remainder after deducting the amount equivalent to the rent from the lease deposit from the lease deposit.
However, as of February 19, 2019, which was the date of the closing of the argument in this case, if Defendant D deducts unjust enrichment equivalent to each of the above rents from Defendant D’s KRW 10 million (monthly rent of KRW 7.5 million) and from KRW 5 million (monthly rent of KRW 700,000) to February 8, 2017 to February 19, 2019, it is obvious that if Defendant I deducts unjust enrichment from the above rents for a period exceeding 14 months from December 8, 2017 to February 19, the deposit money to be paid to the said Defendants is not remaining.
Meanwhile, Defendant C was deemed to have received all the deposit from the lessor on the date of pleading, and Defendant C also was deemed to have received all the deposit from the lessor. Therefore, the aforementioned Defendants’ defense regarding the return of deposit for lease is without merit.
Defendant C, D, E, and I have failed to receive business compensation. However, considering the overall purport of the arguments in Gap evidence 8-1, 2, 3, and 7, Defendant C, D, E, and I, the aforementioned defense is without merit.
Defendant D and I defense that the Defendants could not deliver to the Plaintiff before receiving the cost of housing relocation. However, there is no evidence to acknowledge that the Defendants had a separate right to claim the cost of housing relocation in addition to the business compensation, so acquisition of land, etc. for public works and compensation therefor.