beta
인천지방법원 2018.04.11 2017나9442

건물명도 등

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. The reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance citing the judgment is as follows.

The “judgment” portion of Paragraph 1 is changed as follows, and the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance is identical with that of the judgment of the court of first instance, and such part is cited in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

2. The part to be mard;

A. Considering the following circumstances, the Defendant, after acquiring the ownership of the instant building, occupied and used the instant building from April 12, 2016 to March 18, 2017, for which the eviction of the instant building was verified by E while leaving the building from April 12, 2016, the Defendant occupied and used the instant building from the date when the Plaintiff acquired the ownership of the instant building to March 18, 2017.

1) In the instant building, sales business was carried out in the instant building, and a large number of the items remaining in the instant building was rejected, but the Defendant was the head of the instant sales business who carried on the instant building after the completion of business registration. 2) In light of the fact that “C leased the instant building, and it was only before the instant building (20 square meters),” the Defendant submitted a lease contract (Evidence 5) by asserting that “C only leased the instant building, and it was only before the instant building (20 square meters). However, considering that the Defendant and C is a married couple, it is doubtful whether a lease contract for the sublease was made between the Defendant and C was in itself unreasonable, and whether it was clearly distinguishable from “the occupied portion” and “C occupied portion” among the instant building.

Moreover, the Defendant transferred the rent for the instant building to the lessor several times. As alleged by the Defendant, if the Defendant is only the lessee of the instant building (20 square meters), this does not constitute an easy explanation.

Rather, the Defendant, as a lessee, occupied and used the entire building of this case with husband C.