beta
(영문) 춘천지방법원 2016.11.30 2014가단33485

건물등철거

Text

1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

Reasons

1. Basic facts

A. The defendant completed the registration of transfer of ownership on October 2, 1986 on the building of this case on September 22, 1986.

B. The Defendant, without preparing a lease contract from I, who is the former owner of the instant land, agreed to lease the instant land without a fixed period of time, but, with the intention of owning the instant building on its ground, to pay 200 U.S. dollars each year in the rent without any deposit (hereinafter “instant lease contract”), occupied and used the instant land.

C. On July 16, 2013, the Plaintiff and his spouse J (hereinafter “Plaintiff, etc.”) completed the registration of ownership transfer on the ground of sale on May 13, 2013, with respect to each half of the instant land from I as to each of the instant land.

Plaintiff

On July 23, 2013, the Plaintiff, etc. notified the Defendant of the content-certified mail, “The Plaintiff, etc. acquired the instant land from the former owner I as of May 13, 2013, and succeeded to the instant lease agreement with the former owner, and thus, terminated the land lease agreement with the former owner, and accordingly, notified the Defendant of the removal of the instant building and delivery of the land.” The said notification reached the Defendant on July 25, 2013.

E. After that, the Plaintiff filed the instant lawsuit seeking removal of the instant building on July 29, 2014 and unjust enrichment on the land transfer and rent party, while not entering into a new lease agreement without removing and delivering the instant building.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1, 3, 6, 7, 11, Eul evidence Nos. 1, 2 and 3 (including branch numbers; hereinafter the same shall apply) and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The assertion and judgment

A. Since the Plaintiff’s assertion that the Plaintiff 1 did not pay for more than two vehicles, the Plaintiff terminated the lease contract for the instant land, the Defendant removed the instant building, transferred the instant land, and rendered a rent equivalent thereto.