(영문) 대구지방법원 상주지원 2018.01.24 2017가단130

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 상주지원 2018.01.24 2017가단130

건물인도 등

Text

1. The defendant, among the buildings listed in the separate sheet, points in the separate sheet Nos. 5, 6, 7, 10, and 5 are attached to the plaintiff.

Reasons

1. Basic facts

A. A building listed in the separate sheet (hereinafter “instant building”) was owned C, and the ownership transfer registration was completed on September 8, 201 under the name of the Plaintiff on August 31, 201.

B. From May 15, 2013, the Defendant uses the part (C) of the instant building, which connects each point of which is indicated in the annexed drawing Nos. 5, 6, 7, 10, and 5, as indicated in the annexed drawing Nos. 19.5 square meters and the same drawing Nos. 7, 8, 9, 10, and 7, in sequence, connected each point of which is indicated in the (B) section of the building of this case.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1 and 4, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. According to the above facts of determination as to the cause of the claim, the defendant is obligated to deliver the part of the defendant's possession of the building of this case to the plaintiff.

Meanwhile, the Plaintiff sought the return of rent or unjust enrichment calculated at the rate of KRW 500,000 per month from the day after the delivery of a copy of the complaint of this case to the day after the delivery of the part occupied by the Defendant, but there is no evidence to deem that the amount of rent or unjust enrichment reaches KRW 500,000 per month, and thus, the claim for

3. Judgment on the defendant's defense

A. The gist of the defense was that the Plaintiff, while purchasing the instant building from C, agreed to take over the right to collateral security established on the said building and pay 65 million won with the sale balance, and completed the registration of ownership transfer.

Meanwhile, on the other hand, the Plaintiff was unable to pay KRW 65 million to C, and C occupied the instant building, and agreed to deliver the said building to the Plaintiff at the same time with the payment of KRW 65 million. The Defendant used the part of the Defendant’s possession from May 15, 2013 with C’s permission.

However, since the Plaintiff did not pay KRW 65 million to C so far, the Defendant’s possession permitted by C is lawful, and the Defendant does not have a duty to deliver the Defendant’s possession to the Plaintiff.

B. The defendant's judgment.

유사 판례

-인천지방법원 2016.06.30 2015가단202987

-춘천지방법원 2016.07.07 2015가단994

-수원지방법원 2015.08.18 2014가단5063

-서울남부지방법원 2016.10.07 2016나55344

-대구지방법원상주지원 2016.09.29 2016가단1198