건물명도등
1. The defendant received KRW 42,718,802 from the plaintiff farming association A at the same time, and simultaneously the plaintiff farming association.
1. The following facts can be acknowledged in full view of the purport of the entire pleadings in the entries in Gap evidence 1-1 and No. 12, unless there is a dispute between the parties, or in full view of the purport of the whole pleadings:
Plaintiff
An agricultural partnership A (hereinafter referred to as “Plaintiff corporation”) is an incorporated farming association that cultivates and sells burden and fish repair, etc., and Plaintiff B is the representative director of the Plaintiff corporation.
B. On September 9, 2011, the Plaintiff foundation completed the registration of ownership on the building ledger as to the warehouse listed in the attached Table I (hereinafter “instant warehouse”).
C. On the premise that around February 2012, the Plaintiffs entered into a contract with the Plaintiff corporation and the Defendant for the future partnership, the Plaintiff corporation entered into a contract with the Defendant to allow the Plaintiff to use the instant warehouse, and the Plaintiff B to use each land listed in the attached Table II (hereinafter “each land of this case”) free of charge (hereinafter “instant loan agreement”), and deliver the instant warehouse and each land of this case to the Defendant.
2. Determination
A. We examine the determination as to the cause of the claim. As seen earlier, the instant loan contract is premised on the conclusion of the contract between the Plaintiff and the Defendant on the partnership business, and it is reasonable to view that it was a condition to cancel the contract as a condition to cancel the conclusion of the partnership business contract.
However, in full view of the purport of the entire pleadings in evidence Nos. 5 and 6 (including each number; hereinafter the same) as a whole, it can be acknowledged that the conclusion of the partnership agreement between the plaintiff corporation and the defendant was final and conclusive at the time of the institution of the lawsuit of this case. Thus, the defendant is obliged to deliver the warehouse of this case to the plaintiff corporation, the lender, and the land of this case to the plaintiff Eul due to the termination of the loan of this case
On January 2012, the defendant, at the request of the plaintiffs around January 2012, caused neighboring farmers to cultivate mountain and vegetable crops on approximately 10,00 square meters of land where the plaintiffs secured in advance but neglected.