(영문) 부산지방법원 동부지원 2018.02.14 2017가단9758

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) 부산지방법원 동부지원 2018.02.14 2017가단9758

건물명도 등

Text

1. The plaintiff

A. Defendant B, among the 6th floors of the attached building, shall be classified into Annex B, Section 1, Section 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 1.

Reasons

1. Facts of recognition;

A. The plaintiff is ordered as the plaintiff 1-A.

It is the owner of the building described in the subsection (hereinafter referred to as the “instant building”).

B. Defendant B, with the Plaintiff’s consent, was residing in the instant building from January 2005 without compensation, and was living by moving his residence while leaving his present state.

As Defendant C’s wife, Defendant D, and E are children of Defendant B, Defendant C were living in the instant building from January 2005 to Defendant B.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1 and 2, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination

A. According to the facts of the judgment as to the cause of the claim, Defendant B occupied the building of this case according to the loan agreement, which was concluded between the Plaintiff and the non-determined period of time. Defendant C, D, and E are in the position of the assistant in possession of Defendant B based on the above loan agreement. Since the service of a copy of the complaint of this case by the Plaintiff and the Defendant B terminated the loan agreement between the Plaintiff and the Defendant, Defendant B shall deliver the building of this case to the Plaintiff, and Defendant C, D, and E shall leave the building of this case.

(The plaintiff's request for extradition against Defendant C, D, and E seems to include the plaintiff's request for eviction. (b)

Determination 1 on Defendant C, D, and E’s argument that the above Defendants cannot be deemed to have terminated the use and profit-making under the loan agreement between the Plaintiff and the Defendant B, and thus, the Plaintiff’s exercise of the Plaintiff’s right of termination is unreasonable. However, considering the period in which the Defendants resided in the instant building in light of the period in which they resided in the instant building, it is reasonable to recognize the Plaintiff’s right of termination of the loan agreement, and thus, the above assertion cannot be accepted. In addition, the above Defendants filed the instant lawsuit in collusion with the Plaintiff in order to compel the Defendant C to proceed to divorce, and thus, the instant claim against the said Defendants is in line with

유사 판례

-서울중앙지방법원 2017.04.26 2016가단5044410

-대구지방법원 2016.11.10 2016나304100

-전주지방법원 2015.02.12 2014가단10740

-대전지방법원 2020.08.19 2019가합107481

-광주지방법원장흥지원 2019.03.13 2018가단5851