(영문) 서울북부지방법원 2013.10.16 2011가단51295

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) 서울북부지방법원 2013.10.16 2011가단51295

점유회수

Text

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

2. The costs of the lawsuit are assessed against the defendant.

3.Paragraph 1.

Reasons

1. Basic facts

A. On January 16, 1986, Non-party C received the registration of ownership transfer for the reason of sale on January 10, 1986 with respect to the real estate listed in the separate sheet (hereinafter “the instant house”). On April 10, 2006, the Plaintiff, his wife, upon the death of the network C, completed the registration of ownership transfer for the instant house on April 10, 2006 due to a division of inheritance on January 31, 2006, and completed the registration of ownership transfer for the non-party Beran Corporation (hereinafter “non-party corporation”).

B. On October 17, 1987, the Plaintiff filed a move-in report to the instant house. On November 5, 2008, ex officio ex officio due to unauthorized transfer was re-registered on February 17, 2009, and on October 21, 2011, the Plaintiff was registered as the domicile due to the Defendant’s application and the procedure for investigating the facts by the person in charge.

C. On the other hand, on November 18, 2009, upon the application of Nonparty D, the mortgagee of the instant house, the auction procedure relating to the instant house was initiated upon the voluntary decision to commence auction. On June 24, 2011, the Defendant acquired the ownership by winning the instant house at the auction procedure.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap 1 to Gap 3, Gap 9, and Gap 10, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination as to the cause of action

A. The plaintiff asserted that on April 3, 2006, between the non-party company and the non-party company, the lease contract was concluded with a fixed term of KRW 50 million from April 10, 2006 to April 9, 2008, and the above lease contract was renewed, and it occupied the house of this case. Since the defendant deprived of the plaintiff's possession of the house of this case and possessed it up to now after the defendant deprived of the plaintiff's possession of the house of this case, the defendant alleged that he was entitled to recover the deprived possession, the defendant did not possess the house of this case because it is very doubtful that the plaintiff actually concluded the lease contract with the non-party company.

유사 판례

-서울북부지방법원 2014.12.16 2013나7316

-서울고등법원 1993. 05. 11. 선고 92구37071 판결

-서울북부지방법원 2014.09.26 2013나5303

-의정부지방법원고양지원 2016.04.08 2015가단84534

-서울동부지방법원 2018.09.14 2017가단20464