(영문) 수원지방법원 2012.12.05 2012나17643

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) 수원지방법원 2012.12.05 2012나17643

건물인도

Text

1. Revocation of a judgment of the first instance;

2. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

3. All costs of the lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

Reasons

1. Facts of recognition;

A. On April 1, 2003, the Plaintiff (former trade name: LG Construction Co., Ltd.) entered into a new construction contract with the BC apartment housing reconstruction and improvement project association, completed the construction work on July 2007, and obtained approval for the use from the Sungnam Viewers on July 24, 2007.

B. However, the Plaintiff posted on November 10, 201, a notice stating that the entrance door of the real estate stated in the separate sheet (hereinafter “instant apartment”) was locked and the key thereof was stored in order to secure the claim for the construction price, as a part of the construction price was not paid by the said association. On the other hand, the Plaintiff posted a notice on the apartment entrance to the effect that the right of retention was exercised.

C. On November 28, 2010, the Defendant removed the notice of lien exercise, which was attached to the entrance of the instant apartment on November 28, 2010, destroyed the locking device and entered the said apartment, and thereafter leased the instant apartment to F, and thereafter, occupied the instant apartment from April 27, 2012, when F was after the date of closing the argument in the first instance judgment.

[Ground of recognition] The facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1 and 2, Gap evidence Nos. 5 and 6 (including each number), the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination on the cause of the claim

A. The gist of the plaintiff's assertion is that the defendant damaged the locking device of the apartment of this case on November 28, 2010 and entered the apartment of this case is against the plaintiff's will, and thus, it may be deemed that the defendant has deprived of the plaintiff's possession. Thus, the defendant is obligated to deliver the apartment of this case to the plaintiff in accordance with Article 204 (1) of the Civil Code.

B. In a lawsuit claiming the specification of a building on the ground of an illegal possession, it should be filed against a person who has illegally occupied the building, and against a person who has leased the building to another person and has not actually occupied the building.

참조조문

-민법 제204조 제1항

유사 판례

-대법원 2014.04.24 2013다200292

-수원지방법원성남지원 2012.04.27 2011가단31378

-수원지방법원안산지원 2013.11.27 2012가단22907

-서울남부지방법원 2019.04.05 2018가단260033