logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 서울중앙지방법원 2012.08.22 2011가단121904
점포인도 등
Text

1. The defendant shall indicate to the plaintiff A the building indicated in the attached Form 1, and to the plaintiff B the attached Form 2.

Reasons

1. The fact that the plaintiffs independently own or jointly own each building indicated in [Attachment 1 to 87] as stated in the same indication (the following buildings are referred to as "each building of this case"), and the fact that the defendant possesses each building up to now, can be acknowledged in full view of the whole purport of the arguments in each of the following items: the plaintiff and the defendant did not dispute each other, or Gap evidence 1 to 15, 17 through 45, 47, 49, 51 through 59, 61 through 72, and 75 through 94, and the defendant who interfered with the exercise of ownership in each of the above buildings is obligated to deliver the above buildings to the plaintiffs who are owners, unless there are special circumstances.

2. Judgment on the defendant's assertion

A. 1) The Plaintiffs consented to the lease of each of the instant buildings, and comprehensively delegated all relevant matters to the Intervenor joining the Defendant. 2) The Intervenor joining the Defendant concluded a lease agreement on behalf of the Plaintiffs on behalf of the Defendant around February 15, 2010.

3) On April 15, 2010, the CP attorney appointed as an acting representative in accordance with the decision of a provisional disposition of suspension of duties against the representative AC of the Intervenor joining the Defendant’s Intervenor newly concluded a lease agreement on each of the instant buildings with the Defendant on April 15, 2010. Accordingly, the Defendant is entitled to possess each of the instant buildings under the said lease agreement, and thus, the Defendant cannot comply

B. We examine the judgment, the delegation contract can be terminated at any time (Article 689 of the Civil Act), and the plaintiffs agreed to the blanket lease of each of the buildings of this case.

Even if it is difficult to view that the right to enter into a collective lease contract has been granted to other lessee rather than the first lessee.

arrow