(영문) 대구지방법원 2016.10.19 2014나6907 | 리걸엔진

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) 대구지방법원 2016.10.19 2014나6907

건물명도

Text

1. Revocation of the first instance judgment.

2. The Plaintiff, the Defendant B, and the Defendant C, attached to the attached list No. 1.

Reasons

1. In the trial, the Plaintiff withdrawn the assertion of delivery of the building on the premise that the dismissal of the Defendants is valid.

In light of the facts stated in Gap's evidence 3 through 5 and evidence 8 through 9 (including branch numbers in the case of household numbers) and the overall purport of video and oral arguments, the plaintiff provided each employee apartment as stated in the separate sheet to workers including the defendants for their residence. The members apartment was formed into eight apartment units of 260 households and 5,000 in the land of 5,000 and 260 households. The plaintiff ordered workers, including the defendants, to leave the apartment units to suspend the operation of the apartment units in accordance with the plan to sell the apartment units for the purpose of the expansion of funds and the improvement of business management. Accordingly, the other workers now leave the apartment units of the apartment units, and only two of the defendants are residing in each building listed in the separate sheet. At present, the plaintiff did not manage the apartment units and its surrounding areas because the plaintiff did not pay the management expenses from December 2012, the defendants did not order the plaintiff to leave the apartment units and the defendants to leave the apartment units (which can be applied to the plaintiff and the plaintiff to the plaintiff and the occupant.

According to the above facts of recognition, the plaintiff as the plaintiff has an inevitable reason to order the tenant to leave. Accordingly, the plaintiff is obligated to deliver the building listed in the attached list No. 1, and the defendant C is obligated to deliver the building listed in the attached list No. 2.

2. In conclusion, the plaintiff's claim of this case is justified, and the judgment of the court of first instance is unfair, since it has different conclusions.

유사 판례

-청주지방법원 2015.06.17 2015가단7121

-광주지방법원 2018.12.05 2018가단516805

-부산지방법원 서부지원 2018.01.26 2017가단9112

-대전지방법원 2016. 2. 17. 선고 2015나103478 판결

-서울남부지방법원 2015.11.20 2015가단42722