(영문) 청주지방법원 2020.08.14 2019가단20870

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) 청주지방법원 2020.08.14 2019가단20870

건물인도 청구의 소

Text

1. The defendant shall deliver to the plaintiff the real estate stated in the attached list.

2. The defendant shall pay 14,755,000 won to the plaintiff and March 2020.

Reasons

1. Facts of recognition;

A. The real estate listed in the separate sheet (hereinafter “instant subparagraph C”) is owned by the Plaintiff who was awarded a successful bid on September 27, 2018.

B. From September 27, 2018, the Defendant occupies the instant subparagraph C from September 27, 2018 to the present date.

C. From September 27, 2018 to March 16, 2020, the amount equivalent to the rent is 14,75,000 won, and the amount equivalent to the rent thereafter is 843,00 won per month.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1, Gap evidence 5, each entry of Eul evidence 5, the result of the appraisal commission to appraiser D by this court, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination

A. According to the above facts of determination as to the cause of the claim, the defendant is obligated to deliver to the plaintiff the title of this case as long as it did not assert or prove the source of possessory right, and to pay to the plaintiff the amount equivalent to the rent of KRW 14,755,00 and the amount equivalent to KRW 843,00 per month from March 17, 2020 to the completion date of the above delivery.

B. As to the Defendant’s assertion, the Defendant concluded a construction contract with E Co., Ltd., the previous owner of the instant real estate (hereinafter Nonparty Co., Ltd.) on the entire building including the instant subparagraph C and carried out construction work. The Defendant asserts that the Plaintiff’s claim cannot be complied with since the right of retention exists as the right of retention for the reconstruction and repair cost claim against the Nonparty Co., Ltd. as the preservation right.

However, in light of the description of evidence No. 6, each statement of evidence No. 1 to No. 5 is insufficient to recognize that the defendant has a right of retention as alleged above. Since there is no other evidence to acknowledge it, the above assertion is without merit.

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

유사 판례

-청주지방법원 2020.08.14 2019가단22630

-청주지방법원 2021.02.26 2020가단22322

-수원지방법원 2021.02.17 2020가단523432

-제주지방법원 2021.04.20 2020고단2945

-서울중앙지방법원 2020.12.08 2020가단16219