beta
(영문) 창원지방법원 2018.10.18 2018가단106848

건물명도(인도)

Text

1. The defendant shall deliver to the plaintiff succeeding intervenor the real estate stated in the attached Form.

2. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

3...

Reasons

1. Facts of recognition;

A. On August 17, 2015, the registration of initial ownership was completed in the future of the Plaintiff due to the commission of the registration of provisional disposition on the real estate stated in the attached Form (hereinafter “instant real estate”).

B. On June 7, 2018, the Plaintiff completed the registration of ownership transfer to the Intervenor succeeding to the Plaintiff on the ground of payment in substitutes as of August 27, 2014.

C. The defendant currently occupies the real estate of this case.

[Grounds for recognition] The descriptions of evidence Nos. 1 and 2, and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination

A. According to the above facts of recognition as to the claim of the Plaintiff’s succeeding intervenor, the Defendant is obligated to deliver the instant real estate to the Plaintiff’s succeeding intervenor, except in extenuating circumstances.

B. As the Plaintiff’s claim loses ownership on June 7, 2018, the Plaintiff’s assertion claiming the exclusion of disturbance based on ownership is without merit, without further review.

C. The Defendant asserts that the Defendant’s assertion regarding the instant real estate leased KRW 60 million to the Sunghun Construction Co., Ltd., which constructed the instant real estate (hereinafter “Ssung Construction”), and that the Defendant exercised a lien on the instant real estate based on the said claim, and thus, the Plaintiff’s claim cannot be complied with.

A right of retention shall be established only when a claim created in respect of the object is due and payable.

(Article 320 of the Civil Act). However, it is difficult to see the defendant's claim as a claim concerning the real estate in this case, and there is no evidence to prove that the defendant has a lien on the real estate in this case

The defendant's argument is without merit.

3. In conclusion, the plaintiff's claim by the succeeding intervenor is justified, and the plaintiff's claim is dismissed as it is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.

참조조문