(영문) 수원지방법원성남지원 2020.10.21 2019가단233088

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) 수원지방법원성남지원 2020.10.21 2019가단233088

건물인도

Text

The defendant shall deliver to the plaintiff the buildings listed in the attached list.

Costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the defendant.

Paragraph 1.

Reasons

1. The Plaintiff, on December 10, 2015, leased the real estate listed in the separate sheet (hereinafter “instant real estate”) to the network B as KRW 2,360,00, monthly rent 47,010, with the determination of the cause of the claim. The network B delayed payment of KRW 513,750, monthly rent as of December 19, 2019, when the instant lawsuit was filed, and the network B died on July 30, 2018, and the fact that the Defendant inherited the network B’s inheritance by giving up inheritance was not disputed between the parties, or by taking account of the overall arguments stated in the evidence No. 1, No. 1, No. 2-1, No. 3, and No. 1, and the purport of the entire statement stated in the evidence No. 1, No. 1, No. 1, 2017, the Plaintiff’s complaint on the ground that the lease agreement was terminated for the foregoing reasons is clear.

Therefore, the defendant, who is the heir of the deceased B, is obligated to deliver the real estate stated in the attached Form to the plaintiff.

2. On the defendant's argument, the defendant asserts that since the defendant accepted a qualified acceptance report in the deceased B's inheritance, the defendant's obligation should be limited within the scope of inherited property.

On the other hand, the qualified acceptance system separates the inherited property and the inherited property of the inheritor who made the qualified acceptance from the inheritor to the extent of the inherited property, and there is no risk that the defendant would pay the inherited property as the defendant's inherent property in performing the duty of delivery of real estate which is the inherited property. Therefore, the defendant's acceptance of the qualified acceptance cannot be an obstacle to the duty of delivery to the plaintiff.

Therefore, this part of the defendant's argument is without merit.

3. The plaintiff's claim of this case is justified and it is so decided as per Disposition.

유사 판례

-창원지방법원 2020.07.21 2020가단100133

-춘천지방법원 영월지원 2017.02.15 2015가단11866

-대전지방법원 2019.01.23 2018가단212266

-인천지방법원부천지원 2019.01.31 2018가단116783

-대전지방법원 2019.10.16 2016가단201637