logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
Text
Reasons
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 수원지방법원안산지원 2017.10.31 2017가단53456
점유회수
Text

1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

Reasons

1. The plaintiff's assertion

A. On July 11, 2016, the Plaintiff acquired a claim for construction price and a lien from the Defendant, and occupied the building indicated in the attached Table (hereinafter “instant building”) from that time.

나. 그런데 피고는 원고가 잠시 이 사건 건물을 벗어나 자리를 비운 2006. 12. 14.경 원고가 유치권 행사를 위하여 설치한 외벽 펜스의 출입문 열쇠를 손괴하고 원고가 고용한 원고의 점유보조자 C를 �아내고 이 사건 건물을 강점하였다.

C. In addition, the Defendant: (a) bound the entrance 101 to 103 of the first floor of the instant building from 101 to 103 so that the Plaintiff et al. could not access at all; and (b) took a banner and a lien announcement in the name of the Plaintiff attached to the first floor of the instant building installed by the Plaintiff.

In addition, the defendant arbitrarily put up the signboard attached to the many parts of the building and the public notice note attached to the building, the four small banner attached to the second floor of the building, and the large banner affixed from the fourth floor to the second floor of the building. D.

In addition, the defendant around December 17, 2016, around 2016, installed a fence at a height of 4 meters for the entire South and North of the building of this case.

E. As above, the Defendant: (a) destroyed the key of the outer wall pents installed by the Plaintiff to possess the right of retention on the building of this case; (b) drive away from the Plaintiff’s occupied assistant; and (c) infringed the Plaintiff’s possession by installing a hacks, etc. to block the Plaintiff’s entry; and (d) did not comply with the Plaintiff’s demand for delivery.

Therefore, the defendant is obligated to deliver the building of this case to the plaintiff.

2. On the other hand, it is insufficient to find that the evidence submitted by the Plaintiff alone infringed the Plaintiff’s possession of the instant building, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge this otherwise, and C’s testimony is contrary to the Plaintiff’s assertion.

arrow