(영문) 서울중앙지방법원 2020.02.19 2019나46345

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) 서울중앙지방법원 2020.02.19 2019나46345

건물명도(인도)

Text

1. The defendants' appeal is dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Defendants.

The purport of the claim and appeal is the purport of the appeal.

Reasons

1. According to the overall purport of evidence Nos. 1 and 6 as to the cause of the claim, the Plaintiff acquired the ownership of the real estate listed in the separate sheet (hereinafter “instant building”) on February 27, 2017. The Defendants, as their family members, filed a move-in report on the instant building on October 20, 2017, and thereafter possess the instant building without any title until now.

According to these facts, the Defendants are jointly and severally liable to deliver the instant building to the Plaintiff and return unjust enrichment from the occupation date to the completion date of delivery, barring any special circumstances.

2. As to the Defendants’ assertion, the Defendants asserted to the effect that the Defendants had a legitimate title to occupy the instant building, on the grounds that: (a) Nonparty K acquired a lien from the lower companies of the construction of the said new building, which exercised a lien on the instant building with respect to the third and fifth and fifth and fifth and upper-class complex buildings, including the instant building; and (b) F acquired such lien by paying KRW 240 million to such F; and (c) the Defendants acquired a lien on the instant building with payment of KRW 240,000,000.

However, even if the evidence submitted by the Defendants were fully considered, it is difficult to view that F was transferred by K the claim for construction cost as alleged by the Defendants, and even if so, it was acquired by transfer of such claim.

Even if it cannot be deemed that a legitimate notice of transfer was given, and it cannot be deemed that F occupied the building of this case. Accordingly, the argument that the Defendants acquired the right of retention from F is without merit.

3. As to the scope of unjust enrichment to be returned by the Defendants, the amount of unjust enrichment to be returned by the Defendants is health expenses, and in ordinary cases, the amount of unjust enrichment from possession and use of real estate is equivalent to that of the real estate.

유사 판례

-서울중앙지방법원 2020.02.19 2019나46345

-수원지방법원안산지원 2016.11.30 2015가단17159

-광주지방법원 2017.07.06 2017나14

-수원지방법원 안양지원 2017.03.29 2016가단114659

-서울중앙지방법원 2019.07.03 2018가단5118070