(영문) 서울남부지방법원 2019.07.26 2018가합107979

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) 서울남부지방법원 2019.07.26 2018가합107979

건물명도(인도)

Text

1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

Reasons

1. Basic facts

A. The Defendant and C are prone grandchildren of D (Death on September 2, 2013), and the Plaintiff was living together with D from around 1986.

B. The registration of ownership transfer was completed in the name of D, the defendant, and C on January 19, 2010 with respect to each of one-third shares of the instant building, and the registration of ownership transfer was completed in the name of D, the Defendant, and C on May 24, 2013 with respect to each of the instant one-third shares on May 22, 2013 in the name of the defendant and C, respectively, on May 22, 2013.

After that, the provisional registration of the right to claim the transfer of all co-owners' shares was completed on September 9, 2013 in the name of the Plaintiff on September 10, 2013 with respect to the instant building on the ground of a pre-sale agreement as of September 9, 2013, and the registration of transfer of ownership was completed on October 28, 2013 in the name of the Plaintiff on October 25, 2013 with respect to the shares of 1/2 (i.e., 1/31/6).

(hereinafter “this case’s registration of transfer of ownership”). 【No dispute exists, Gap evidence Nos. 1, Eul evidence Nos. 1 through 3, and the purport of the whole pleadings.

2. Judgment on the plaintiff's assertion

A. The plaintiff's assertion and the defendant are co-owners who own 1/2 shares of the building of this case. A lease contract concerning the building of this case is concluded as follows. The defendant does not decide the management act of the building of this case, which is co-owned property as a majority of co-owners' shares, as a sole decision without consultation with the plaintiff.

The plaintiff was not paid a tea to the first floor beerer, the second floor game room, and the third room. The plaintiff was paid a tea corresponding to 1/2 of the first floor pharmacy, E, and F. The plaintiff was paid a tea to the first floor convenience store.

C. 10,000,000 G 10,000,000 10,000 2,000 2,000 31st and upper convenience stores of 180,000,000 1,600,000 31st and upper convenience stores of 10,000,000 EJ 10,2000,000 1,200,000 1,200,000 20,000 FK 1,000,000 1,000,000,006 20,000,006 2nd and upper convenience stores L 10,00,000,50,000 and 10,000,000,000 and 10,000,000,000, 300,000

유사 판례

-서울남부지방법원 2018.06.08 2017가합103345

-수원지방법원 2020.10.15 2020가합15617

-대구지방법원 2015.11.13 2014나305178

-대구지방법원서부지원 2015.04.30 2014가단29647

-의정부지방법원 2019.05.23 2017가단123768