(영문) 인천지방법원 2019.10.30 2019나51539

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) 인천지방법원 2019.10.30 2019나51539

건물명도

Text

1. The plaintiff (appointed party)'s appeal is dismissed.

2. The preliminary decision of the Plaintiff (Appointed Party) added by this Court.

Reasons

1. Judgment as to the main claim

A. The grounds for appeal by the Plaintiff (Appointed Party) and the designated parties (hereinafter referred to as “Plaintiffs”) are not significantly different from the allegations in the first instance court. However, the fact-finding and judgment by the first instance court to the effect that the Plaintiffs cannot set off against the Defendant a claim against the Defendant within an amount equal to the secured claim in the Defendant’s lien against the D-ho building and F-ho building (hereinafter collectively referred to as “each of the instant buildings”) by using the monetary claim against the Defendant as an automatic bond is justifiable.

Therefore, the reasoning for this court’s explanation as to the Plaintiff’s primary claim is that of the first instance judgment, except for the addition of “additional Judgment” as to the Plaintiff’s assertion of extinguishment of the right of retention added to this court when the Plaintiff (Appointed Party) reached this court, and therefore, this Court cited it as it is in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of the

B. Additional determination (as to the claim of extinction of lien due to the lien holder’s breach of duty of care) 1) The plaintiffs’ assertion is the building located in the Nam-gu Incheon Metropolitan City H neighborhood living facilities (hereinafter “the instant condominium building”). However, if each of the partitioned buildings is separately referred to by the number of houses, it is deemed “00 building”.

In accordance with Article 324(1) of the Civil Act, the defendant who exercises a lien on each of the buildings of this case, which are the objects of custody, shall possess the objects of custody with the care of a good manager.

However, the defendant damaged the utility of the partitioned building by impairing the section for common use and entrance of the first floor to which the building belongs, and damaged the electric facilities, and closed the building in front of the stairs room, which is the front common use area of the Fho Lake building.

Therefore, this is the lien holder with respect to the possession of each building of this case.

참조조문

-민법 제324조 제1항

-민사소송법 제420조

유사 판례

-대법원 2013. 4. 11. 선고 2011다107009 판결

-서울고등법원 2021.01.15 2020누40640

-수원지방법원 2018.10.11 2017나87654

-서울동부지방법원 2019.06.07 2018나28299

-대법원 2021. 7. 29. 선고 2019다216077 판결