logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 서울중앙지방법원 2018.12.07 2017나86677
건물명도
Text

1. The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

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

Purport of claim and appeal

1...

Reasons

1. The reasons for the acceptance of the judgment of the court of first instance are as follows, except for the addition of the following ‘2. Additional determination' as to the argument that the defendant emphasizes in the trial of the court of first instance, and therefore, they are cited in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

2. Additional determination

A. The plaintiff's assertion (1) The defendant asserts that the defendant had a legitimate right to use the house of this case since the plaintiff ratified the act of unauthorized agency as to the loan of this case or consented to the above loan of this loan of use, even though the defendant did not have the right to dispose of the house of this case between C and C, which is the defendant's fraudulent person who actually operated the plaintiff as the plaintiff's large shareholder, and the defendant concluded a loan of use without agreement between C and C to use the house of this case.

(2) On February 2010, the Plaintiff allowed the Defendant to reside free of charge in the instant housing. However, since 2015, the Plaintiff notified the Defendant of the termination of the said loan for use, and filed the instant lawsuit on October 25, 2016. Since the said loan for use was already terminated, the Plaintiff asserts that the Defendant has no right to occupy and use the instant housing.

B. (1) According to Article 613(2) of the Civil Act, if the duration of the loan for use is not specified, the borrower shall return the object at the time when the contract or the use and profit-making under the nature of the object is completed, but the lender may terminate the contract at any time when the sufficient period for use and profit-making expires, even if the use and profit-making is not completed in reality, and the lender may demand the return of the object borrowed. Whether the sufficient period for use and profit-making has expired or not is determined at the time of the loan for use, the borrower’

arrow