(영문) 청주지방법원영동지원 2019.05.10 2018가단4429

beta

본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.

Text

Reasons

텍스트 조절

글꼴

크기(pt)

굵기

줄 간격

자간(%)

(영문) 청주지방법원영동지원 2019.05.10 2018가단4429

건물명도(인도)

Text

1. The defendant shall deliver to the plaintiff the real estate stated in the attached list.

2. The costs of the lawsuit are assessed against the defendant.

3...

Reasons

1. The Plaintiff’s judgment on the cause of the instant claim (hereinafter “instant apartment”) completed the registration of ownership transfer as of October 26, 2015 with the Daejeon District Court Daejeon District Court’s receipt of No. 7002 on October 26, 2015, and the fact that the Defendant occupied the instant apartment is not in dispute between the parties, or may be acknowledged by adding the whole purport of the pleadings to the entry in the evidence No. 2 attached hereto.

According to the above facts, the defendant, the possessor of the apartment of this case, has the duty to deliver the apartment of this case to the plaintiff, the owner of the apartment of this case.

2. The Defendant asserts that the Defendant did not have a duty to deliver the instant apartment until divorce and division of property is finalized, since the divorce lawsuit is pending between the Plaintiff and the Plaintiff.

The following facts are established: (a) the Plaintiff and the Defendant married on July 20, 1964; (b) the Plaintiff and the Defendant filed a claim for damages against the Defendant for divorce and divorce; and (c) the Plaintiff filed a lawsuit for division of property pursuant to Article 839-2(2) of the Civil Act against the Defendant on the grounds of divorce and divorce; or (d) the facts that the Plaintiff filed a lawsuit for division of property pursuant to Article 839-2(2) of the Civil Act do not conflict between the parties, or that the entire purport

However, in light of the following circumstances revealed by the foregoing evidence, namely, the Plaintiff and the Defendant appears to have reached a de facto marital failure since July 31, 2017, and the first instance court of the case, such as divorce, rendered a judgment that the Plaintiff and the Defendant divorced on July 4, 2018 and the Defendant would pay the Plaintiff money as consolation money and the division of property, it is difficult to deem that the Plaintiff and the Defendant are capable of refusing to deliver the instant apartment solely on the sole basis that the divorce lawsuit is pending between the Plaintiff and the Defendant.

The defendant's above assertion is not accepted.

3. The Defendant is obligated to deliver the instant apartment to the Plaintiff.

참조조문

-민법 제839조의2 제2항

유사 판례

-대전지방법원 2018.06.20 2017가단210683

-대구지방법원 2015.12.22 2015가단35178

-제주지방법원 2018.05.18 2017가단8950

-대구지방법원서부지원 2015.10.08 2014가단18005

-서울서부지방법원 2020.08.27 2019가단270746