logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 서울동부지방법원 2021.01.27 2019가단21775
손해배상(기)
Text

All of the plaintiffs' claims against the defendant are dismissed.

The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the plaintiffs.

Reasons

1. Basic facts

A. On March 10, 2015, the Defendant completed the registration of transfer of ownership on the ground of sale on March 10, 2015, in the procedure of voluntary auction conducted with respect to the land of 661m2, E, E, 4,609m2, F, 661m2, G, and 604m2 (hereinafter “instant land”).

B. In order to take over the instant land, the Defendant applied for an order to deliver real estate against the Plaintiff B Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “Plaintiff Co., Ltd.”) to the Suwon District Court Sung-nam Branch I, and received the said court’s decision on April 2, 2015. The Defendant completed the delivery of real estate on May 14, 2015 through the enforcement officer of the said court.

(c)

After that, the Plaintiff kept the articles on the instant land in accordance with the order to preserve the creditors of the movable properties held by the enforcement officer. On May 18, 2015, the Plaintiff notified the Plaintiff company to accept them, and notified the Plaintiff company to dispose of them at the expense of the Plaintiff company if the Plaintiff did not accept them, the Plaintiff sent a certified mail proving the fact of the custody of the movable properties with the permission to sell the movable properties at the expense of the Plaintiff company and the demand for acceptance.

(d)

Plaintiff

Around June 2015, the Defendant filed an application with the above court for an order for sale of the article in custody except for the said vehicle Class II. On July 14, 2015, the above court set the sale date on July 30, 2015 for the article in custody including the said vehicle and sold the article except for the said vehicle.

E. Meanwhile, on March 21, 2019, the Plaintiff Company, the owner of the instant land, issued a voluntary order to dispose of the abandoned vehicle without permission until April 5, 2019, but returned to the addressee’s uncertainty. On April 2, 2019, the Plaintiff issued a voluntary order to dispose of the abandoned vehicle without permission until April 29, 2019, but returned to the addressee’s unknown address, the Plaintiff Company issued the voluntary order to dispose of the abandoned vehicle without permission on April 30, 2019.

arrow