beta
(영문) 의정부지방법원 2018.10.19 2018나205170

건물명도(인도)

Text

1. All appeals by the Defendants are dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal are assessed against the Defendants.

3. The judgment of the court of first instance is ordered.

Reasons

1. The reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance citing the instant case is that of the judgment of the court of first instance, except where the part concerning paragraph (3) of the judgment of the court of first instance citing the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance citing the same as that of the judgment of the court of first instance citing the reasoning of the judgment of the court of

2. Parts 3. Determination

A. The plaintiff asserted that defendant A had occupied the apartment of this case without permission to the defendant Eul, and the defendants asserted that there was no sub-lease, and therefore, we look at this point.

The above facts and the following circumstances are comprehensively taken into account the evidence, Gap evidence No. 6 evidence, and the overall purport of the argument, i.e., the defendants resided in the apartment of this case from the time when they moved into the apartment of this case, and the defendant A had been residing in the apartment of this case 1 to 2 times a month, and the defendants asserted that the defendant A had resided in the apartment of this case with the defendant Eul since the time they moved into the apartment of this case. However, the J Hospital at the time of the defendant A had a considerable distance from the apartment of this case, and as the defendants were the defendants, the defendant A was not deemed to reside in the apartment of this case, since it was merely 1 to 2 times a month, it is difficult to view that the defendant A was residing in the apartment of this case, and the defendants asserted that the defendant A transferred the right of lease to Eul because it was difficult for the defendant to move to the "K" restaurant at the time of his moving into the apartment of this case, but there is no evidence to acknowledge that the defendants moved into the apartment of this case, the defendant Eul's residential owner.