beta
(영문) 대전지방법원 2017.02.07 2016가단210747

건물명도

Text

1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

Reasons

1. The parties' assertion

A. The Plaintiff is the owner of the instant officetel.

Since the Defendant without authority occupies the instant officetel, it is obligated to deliver the instant officetel to the owner of the instant officetel.

B. At the time of June 29, 2001, the Defendant concluded a lease agreement with the owner of the instant officetel and thereafter occupied the instant officetel, and thereafter lawfully occupied the instant officetel in accordance with the lease agreement until now.

2. Facts of recognition;

A. The Korea Land Trust Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “Korea Land Trust”) completed the registration of initial ownership on February 5, 2001 of the instant officetel.

B. On June 29, 2001, the Defendant entered into a lease contract with respect to the instant officetel by setting the deposit amount of KRW 30 million between June 29, 2001 and June 29, 2002, and obtained a fixed date on the same day lease contract, and completed the move-in report to the instant officetel on the same day.

C. On February 8, 2006, the Defendant entered into a lease agreement between Korea and Korea on the instant officetel by setting the deposit amount of KRW 45 million and the lease period from February 8, 2006 to February 7, 2007.

On March 8, 2016, the Plaintiff purchased the instant officetel from the Korea Land Trust on March 8, 2016 and completed the registration of ownership transfer for the instant officetel on the 22th of the same month.

[Based on the recognition] Evidence Nos. 1, 1-1, 2, and 3, fact inquiry results on Korean land trust, the purport of the entire pleadings

3. According to the facts of the above recognition, the defendant can recognize that the defendant entered into a land trust agreement with Korea, the owner of the instant officetel, and possessed the instant officetel, and completed the move-in report to the instant officetel. Thus, the defendant can assert the validity of the lease agreement to a third party. The plaintiff, the new owner of the instant officetel, is the plaintiff.