beta
(영문) 창원지방법원 2016.03.31 2015나36581

토지인도

Text

1. Of the judgment of the court of first instance, the part against the Defendants exceeding the money ordered to be paid under the following subparagraphs shall be revoked.

Reasons

1. Basic facts

A. On July 1, 2011, Plaintiff A leased the instant site to C by setting the lease deposit amount of KRW 20,000,000, KRW 5,000,000 per month of rent (in the name of Plaintiff B), and the lease period of KRW 2 years until June 30, 2013.

(hereinafter “instant lease agreement”). B.

On May 10, 2013, the Plaintiffs completed the registration of ownership transfer in the future of the Plaintiffs, each of 1/2 shares as to the instant site.

C. The instant lease agreement was implicitly renewed, and on April 23, 2015, Plaintiff A sent to C evidentiary mail containing an expression of intent to refuse the renewal, and on June 30, 2015, the said renewed lease term expired.

On the other hand, around March 2015, the Defendants leased the instant site from C (hereinafter “instant sub-lease”). The instant site is used as an exclusive parking lot of “G” from around that time to that time.

E. The Defendants, in turn, installed a container stuff on the ground of 17.8 square meters in order to connect each point of 17.8 square meters in the attached Form 5, 6, 7, 8, and 5 among the instant land, with a parking lot signboard on the ground in the part of the attached Form 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, and 13 in order to connect each point of 9, 10, 10, 11, 12, and 9 on the ground of the attached Form 17.8 square meters in order to connect each point of 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, and 13 in the part of the instant land, which connected each point of 1.1 square meters in the ship’s cream section of the attached Form 18, 19, 20, 21, and

(hereinafter referred to as “container stuff, parking lot signboards, water tanks, kimchis, and parking registration machines”. 【No dispute exists in the grounds for recognition, the entries in Gap 1, 2, 3, Eul 1, 2, and 4, Eul 3-1, 2-2, and Eul 3-2, the result of the commission of appraisal by the first instance court to the chief executive officer of the Korea Land Information Corporation in the first instance court, and the purport of the entire pleadings.

2. Determination on Defendant D’s main defense

A. Defendant D is Defendant E, the possessor of the instant site, and himself.