(영문) 청주지방법원 2015.02.11 2014나10169

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 2015.02.11 2014나10169

건물인도

Text

1. Revocation of a judgment of the first instance;

2. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

3. All costs of the lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

Reasons

1. Facts of recognition;

A. On December 14, 2010, the Plaintiff purchased real estate listed in the separate sheet (hereinafter “instant apartment”) from E and completed the registration of ownership transfer for the instant apartment on the 16th of the same month.

B. On April 8, 2013, the Defendant concluded a lease agreement with C, stating that the Plaintiff’s mother, who is a representative of the Plaintiff, shall be KRW 110,00,000 for the lease deposit with respect to the instant apartment and the period from June 10, 2013 to June 9, 2015 (hereinafter “the lease agreement of this case”).

C. On April 7, 2013, the Defendant paid C the down payment of KRW 1,00,000,000 out of the down payment 10,000,000 of the instant lease contract as the down payment, and thereafter, KRW 9,00,000 out of the remainder of the down payment of KRW 1,00,000,000, the date of the contract, is April 8, 2013; and KRW 2,00,000,000 out of the remainder of the lease deposit of KRW 1,00,000,

5.2. The remaining 98,00,000 won for a national bank account in the name of each plaintiff;

6. 10. 10. 10. The defendant remitted the apartment of this case to the account in the name of C, and the defendant was delivered the apartment of this case from C on June 10, 2013, together with the electronic heat chain and internal keys, and has resided until now.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1, Gap evidence 2, Eul evidence 8, Eul evidence 2, Eul evidence 6, Eul evidence 7 (including each number; hereinafter the same shall apply) and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. According to the above facts of determination as to the cause of the claim, the defendant who possesses the apartment of this case has a duty to deliver the apartment of this case to the plaintiff who is the owner of the apartment of this case, unless there is any assertion or proof of legitimate title of possession.

3. Determination on the defendant's defense

A. The summary of the Defendant’s defense (1) Since the Plaintiff’s mother granted C the authority to execute the instant lease contract on behalf of the Plaintiff, the instant lease agreement entered into between C and the Defendant on behalf of the Plaintiff is valid.

Therefore, the defendant is legitimate.

유사 판례

-창원지방법원 2016.02.03 2015나5754

-서울동부지방법원 2019.08.23 2018가단135035

-전주지방법원 2019.06.28 2018가단26378

-전주지방법원 2017.12.15 2016가단16544

-광주지방법원 2019.05.03 2018가단528495