(영문) 청주지방법원충주지원 2015.01.08 2014가단2047

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) 청주지방법원충주지원 2015.01.08 2014가단2047

건물명도 등

Text

1. The defendant shall be the plaintiff.

A. Each apartment recorded in the separate sheet shall be ordered, and it shall be from March 28, 2014 to the above order of surrender.

Reasons

1. In full view of the purport of the entire pleadings in the evidence Nos. 1 and No. 3, the Plaintiff completed the registration of ownership transfer on each apartment building listed in the separate sheet (hereinafter “each apartment of this case”) on November 27, 2007, and the Defendant may recognize the fact that each apartment of this case has been occupied from March 3, 2012 to March 3, 2012.

2. Determination

A. According to the above facts of recognition, the defendant is obligated to order the plaintiff who is the owner to order each apartment of this case.

B. As to this, the Defendant asserted that there exists a lien on each of the apartment buildings of this case in order to secure the claim for construction cost of KRW 194,00,000, which was not paid by the search and construction comprehensive and mining construction corporation after completing the crypt construction of the apartment buildings of this case.

However, it is difficult to acknowledge the statement No. 1 only with the statement of No. 5, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it. In full view of the purport of the entire pleadings in each statement of No. 5, No. 800,000, the defendant's assertion on April 11, 2011 that the defendant agreed to receive the ownership of No. 406 and No. 207 (the change to No. 1501 and No. 1502) from the plaintiff among the buildings where each apartment building of this case is located, and that the defendant would receive the ownership of No. 1502 and No. 1505 on December 23, 2011. Thus, the defendant's above defense is without merit.

C. In addition, the Plaintiff asserted that the Defendant occupied each apartment of this case from December 27, 201 to December 201, and filed a claim for restitution of unjust enrichment calculated at the rate of KRW 700,000 per month. There is no evidence to prove that the Defendant occupied each apartment of this case from December 27, 2011 to March 2, 2012. Thus, the claim for the above period is without merit, but according to the facts found earlier, the Defendant is each apartment of this case from March 3, 2012 to the date of each apartment of this case.

유사 판례

-춘천지방법원 속초지원 2006.12.20.선고 2005가단2433 판결

-제주지방법원 2015.03.03 2014가단11252

-창원지방법원 2016.09.23 2015가단83760

-대구지방법원 포항지원 2018.05.29 2017가단104314

-서울중앙지방법원 2017.06.14 2015가단5288404