logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 인천지방법원 2016.08.18 2015가합744
건물인도등
Text

1. The defendant shall indicate the specific location of each real estate listed in the attached Form 1. The detailed location in the real estate list to the plaintiff.

Reasons

1. The Plaintiff is the owner who completed the registration of ownership transfer with respect to each section for exclusive use listed in the real estate list (hereinafter “each section for exclusive use”) on attached Form 1, among the first basements of the underground floors of the aggregate building building B, which is an aggregate building constructed on the ground A in Nam-gu Incheon Metropolitan City (hereinafter “instant building”). The Defendant entered into a sub-lease contract with C on October 30, 2014 regarding the transfer of the first floor of the instant building from the Co., Ltd. to the underground floor.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1, 3, Eul evidence 1, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The parties' assertion that the plaintiff did not enter into a lease agreement with C as to each of the separate stores in this case, and that there was no delegation of the right to lease with respect to each of the separate stores in this case to C and C, and since there was no delegation of the right to lease with respect to each of the instant separate stores, the defendant who directly occupies each of the instant separate stores without any title is obligated to deliver each of the instant separate stores to the plaintiff.

In this regard, the defendant asserted that since the defendant legally acquired all the first floor of the building of this case from C to the third party, it did not directly possess each of the separate stores of this case.

3. Determination

A. The Defendant asserts that all the first floor of the instant building was occupied indirectly by a third party. In order to claim delivery on the ground of an illegal possession, the Defendant’s demand for delivery against the person who actually occupies the instant building should be made against the third party, and even if the illegal possessor does not actually possess the object, the demand for delivery against the third party is unfair (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 98Da9045, Jul. 9, 199). Thus, the Defendant is the direct possessor who leased each of the instant sectioned stores.

arrow