logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 인천지방법원 2016.04.28 2015가단32188
건물인도
Text

1. The defendant shall deliver the building as stated in the attached Form to the plaintiff.

2. The costs of the lawsuit are assessed against the defendant.

3.Paragraph 1.

Reasons

1. Facts of recognition;

A. The Plaintiff is the owner of the building indicated in the attached Form (hereinafter “the apartment of this case”), and the Defendant is the Plaintiff’s Pool.

(The plaintiff's husband C is the defendant's husband).

From October 23, 2009, the Plaintiff had the Defendant reside in the apartment of this case without compensation.

C. On March 26, 2015, the Plaintiff sent to the Defendant a content-certified mail stating that the contract for use and profit-making of the instant apartment is terminated, and the said content-certified mail was served to the Defendant around that time.

On May 15, 2015, the defendant filed a lawsuit against her husband C, such as divorce, etc. by the Incheon Family Court No. 2015ddan6760.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1 through 6, Eul evidence 1 and 2, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination on the cause of the claim

A. According to Article 613(2) of the Civil Act, if the duration of a loan for use is not specified, the borrower shall return the object at the time when the use or profit-making under the nature of the contract or the object is completed, but even if the use or profit-making is not completed in reality, if the period sufficient for the lender to use or profit-making expires, the lender may terminate the contract at any time and claim the return of the object borrowed. Whether the period sufficient for the use or profit-making has expired or not shall be determined on the basis of fairness by comprehensively taking into account the circumstances as at the time of the loan for use contract, the period of use

B. (See, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2001Da23669, Jul. 24, 2001).

According to the above facts, around October 23, 2009, the plaintiff entered into a loan agreement with the defendant for the use of the apartment of this case which did not set a period of time. The following circumstances revealed in the proceedings of the pleading of this case and the defendant's apartment of this case.

arrow