건물명도(인도)
1. The Defendant shall deliver to the Plaintiff a part of the attached building (86.25 square meters) among the buildings indicated in the attached Form.
2. The costs of the lawsuit are assessed against the defendant.
1. The facts subsequent to the facts of recognition may be found either in dispute between the parties or in Gap evidence 1 (including additional numbers) together with the overall purport of the pleadings.
On September 25, 2015, the Plaintiff received the registration of ownership transfer from C on September 17, 2015 with respect to the building listed in the separate sheet (hereinafter “instant building”).
B. The Defendant occupied and occupied the part of the first floor of the instant building (hereinafter “instant building”) before the Plaintiff completed the registration of ownership transfer.
2. The assertion and judgment
A. According to the above facts of recognition as to the cause of the claim, the defendant is obligated to deliver the part of the building of this case to the plaintiff, unless there is a legitimate title to oppose the plaintiff.
B. (1) The summary of the Defendant’s assertion (A) is that the Defendant entered into an agreement with D to set the instant building as a deposit amount of KRW 150 million on or around March 2014 with D to set up a deposit money of KRW 150 million, and paid KRW 150 million to him/her, and thereafter, he/she was residing in the instant building from April 2014, and thus, he/she has a legitimate right to possess it.
(B) The actual owner of the instant building is D, and C or the Plaintiff is only a person who received a title trust from the Plaintiff.
(2) According to Article 3(1) of the Housing Lease Protection Act as to whether there is a possessor of right with opposing power, the lease becomes effective against a third party from the following day when the lessee completes the delivery of a house and the resident registration even if no registration is made.
Before the Plaintiff completed the registration of ownership transfer concerning the building of this case on September 25, 2015, there is no evidence to acknowledge that the Defendant completed the registration of ownership transfer on the building of this case.
Rather, comprehensively taking account of the overall purport of the statement No. 2, the Defendant completed the resident registration in the instant building only after September 4, 2017.