beta
(영문) 서울북부지방법원 2016.12.09 2016가단118636

건물명도

Text

1. ① The Defendant: (a) the 4th building listed in the attached list on Copp’s Top C&C; and (b) the Plaintiff.

Reasons

1. Determination on both arguments

A. If the purport of the entire pleadings is added to the entries or videos of each part of Gap 3, 4, 6-13, the defendant is obligated to deliver each of the buildings listed in the separate sheet (hereinafter collectively referred to as "the building of this case") to the plaintiffs on March 4, 2016, following the conclusion of each of the respective registrations of ownership transfer under the sales contract in the name of CoppnC Co., Ltd. on March 4, 2016. As for the buildings listed in the separate sheet (hereinafter referred to as "the building of this case"), even though the respective registrations of ownership transfer under the Trust Act have been completed for the first, second, and three buildings listed in the separate sheet, the fact that the defendant occupies all of the buildings of this case directly or through B, etc., and barring special circumstances, the defendant is obligated to hand over the buildings listed in the corresponding column

B. As to this, the Defendant asserts to the effect that, based on the land trust agreement entered into between C and C on November 30, 2007, based on the sale-type land trust agreement entered into between D and the former owner of the building in this case, D, etc., and the Defendant has occupied the building in this case continuously since around that time, based on the lease agreement, etc., so the Defendant cannot comply with the Plaintiffs’ request for delivery of each of the building in this case. However, even if the Defendant’s assertion was based on the above assertion, it is apparent that two years have already passed since the contract term of the above lease agreement entered into between C and D, etc. was valid due to changes such as the lawful renewal of the lease contract relationship (On the other hand, evidence which can be seen as still possessing 201 and 201-1 among the building in this case). The Defendant’s assertion that there is still a legitimate source of possession right in this case based on the premise that it still exists a legitimate source of possession right in this case.

참조조문