(영문) 서울서부지방법원 2015.12.24 2014가단211094

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) 서울서부지방법원 2015.12.24 2014가단211094

건물퇴거

Text

1. The Plaintiff, among the buildings listed in Appendix 2., from the first floor of the Defendant B, from the second floor of the Defendant C, and from the third floor of the Defendant D.

Reasons

1. Determination on this safety defense

A. Defendant C and D’s defense is demanding the said Defendants to leave each part of the building indicated in the attached Table 2 (hereinafter “instant building”). However, the said Defendants had already left the said part of the instant building, and as such, the claim against the said Defendants in the instant lawsuit is unlawful.

B. According to Gap evidence No. 3, the plaintiff filed a provisional disposition against the above defendants as Seoul Western District Court 2013Kadan11226, which was decided on December 26, 2013, and received a decision of acceptance from the above court. It can be acknowledged that the execution of provisional disposition has been completed at that time. The above defendants are still in the position of possessor in relation to the plaintiff, who is the provisional disposition creditor.

Therefore, the above defendants' defense is without merit (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 87Meu257, Nov. 24, 1987).

2. Judgment on the merits

A. Comprehensively taking account of the overall purport of the arguments in evidence Nos. 4 through 7, the plaintiff was awarded a winning judgment by filing a lawsuit on December 27, 2007 against NAM Co., Ltd., the previous owner of the building of this case, and the removal of the building of this case and the transfer of the land listed in Schedule No. 1 (hereinafter “instant land”). The above judgment became final and conclusive on December 2008. The above judgment became final and conclusive on December 208. The first floor owner of the building of this case, F, the second floor owner, H, the third floor owner, H, and the fourth floor owner, the fourth floor owner of the building of this case, the successor of NAM, the defendant C, the second floor from G, the defendant D, the third floor from H, and the building of this case shall be removed according to the final and conclusive judgment, and each of the above parts of the buildings shall be deemed to have been occupied by the defendants.

I would like to say.

B. The Defendants’.

참조판례

-대법원 1987. 11. 24. 선고 87다카257, 258 판결

유사 판례

-부산지방법원서부지원 2019.05.29 2018가단10324

-대구지방법원 2015.06.26 2014가단43325

-부산지방법원동부지원 2015.11.06 2015가단2500

-서울서부지방법원 2016.04.07 2015가단200633

-서울남부지방법원 2016.11.30 2015가단66643