(영문) 전주지방법원군산지원 2016.07.12 2015가단5021 (1)

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) 전주지방법원군산지원 2016.07.12 2015가단5021 (1)

건물명도 등

Text

1. The defendant shall be the plaintiff.

(a) deliver the buildings listed in the separate sheet;

B. From May 27, 2014

(a) An entry in paragraph (1);

Reasons

1. Basic facts

A. On May 27, 2014, the Plaintiff completed the registration of ownership transfer for reasons of public sale on May 20, 2014 regarding the buildings listed in the separate sheet (hereinafter “instant building”).

B. The Defendant occupies and uses the instant building from before the Plaintiff owned it to the present time.

C. From May 27, 2014 to November 7, 2014, the monthly rent of the instant building is KRW 1,712,00.

[Reasons for Recognition] Facts without a partial dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1, 2, 4, 5, and 8, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The assertion and judgment

A. The building of this case which the plaintiff won a successful bid on the defense prior to the merits is a building where the removal of the building was ordered by a final judgment in the case (the Jeonju District Court 2009Gahap9668) against the non-party C Co., Ltd. (the previous owner of the land where the building of this case is located) such as land rent and removal of the building against the non-party C Co., Ltd. (the previous owner of the

In order to remove the building, the non-party limited company that is the present owner of the above land, D received the execution clause of succession to the non-party corporation C and received a substitute execution decision against the non-party corporation C, and even against the defendant, the court applied for provisional disposition prohibiting the transfer of real estate possession and filed a lawsuit such as the removal of the building from the building in this court, and the defendant was ordered to leave the building in this case.

In full view of such circumstances, the Plaintiff cannot be transferred the possession of the building of this case from the Defendant, and even if the Plaintiff had the right to use, profit from, and dispose of the building of this case as the owner of the building of this case, such right shall interfere with the ownership of the land of the said land owner, who is the right to remove the building of this case, and thus, the Plaintiff cannot be deemed to have a legitimate title to the building of this case. Therefore, the Plaintiff is not the Plaintiff but the person

유사 판례

-대법원 1992. 2. 28. 선고 91다17443 판결

-청주지방법원 2014.12.18 2014가합1673

-서울동부지방법원 2012. 11. 21. 선고 2012나9333 판결

-수원지방법원 안양지원 2018.04.06 2016가단101592

-대전지방법원 천안지원 2017.04.21 2016가합102354