logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 서울서부지방법원 2016.02.04 2015가단230559
건물명도
Text

1. The Plaintiff:

A. Defendant A Co., Ltd. delivers the building No. 102 of the first floor in Seoan-gu, Seoan-gu, Seoan-gu, Incheon;

B. Defendant A.

Reasons

1. Formation of a duty to deliver the building;

A. According to the evidence evidence Nos. 1, 3, and 2, the Plaintiff purchased the building No. 102 from the Korea Asset Management Corporation on June 16, 2014, the Plaintiff purchased the building No. 102, Seo-gu, Seoan-gu, Seoan-gu, Incheon (hereinafter “instant building”) from the public auction, and completed the registration of ownership transfer on July 24, 2014, but the Defendant A Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “Defendant Co., Ltd”) (hereinafter “Defendant Co.”), by means of Defendant B, C, D, E, and F.

According to the above facts of recognition, the defendant company is obligated to deliver the building of this case to the plaintiff, except in special circumstances.

The Plaintiff asserted that Defendant B, C, D, E, and F occupy the instant building, and thus, they have a duty to deliver the instant building jointly with the Defendant Company. However, the fact that Defendant B is the representative director of the Defendant Company, and that Defendant C, D, E, and F is an employee of the Defendant Company or a dispute between the parties is clearly recorded or there is no dispute between the parties. Therefore, it is difficult to recognize that the said Defendants independently occupied the instant building, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it. Therefore, the Plaintiff’s assertion against the said Defendants is without merit.

B. The defendant company's assertion and judgment (1) The defendant company's assertion that the defendant company had a legitimate right to possess the building of this case, since the defendant company has a claim for construction price of KRW 2.16 million against H who constructed Seo-gu G in Seoan-gu, Seoan-gu, Seoan-gu, Incheon, for the right to retention of the building of this case.

(2) According to the records in Gap evidence No. 3, the defendant company entered into a contract for the construction of the building of the building of the building of the building of the building of the building of the building of the building of the building of the building of the building of the building of the building of the building of the building of the building of the building of the building of the building of the building of the building of the building of the building of the building of the building as of May 6, 2003 and completed the construction of the building of the building of the building of the building of the building of the building of the building of the building of the building of the building of the building of the building of the building of the building of the building of the

arrow