(영문) 수원지방법원 2018.10.11 2017나87654

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) 수원지방법원 2018.10.11 2017나87654

건물명도

Text

1. The plaintiff's appeal and the defendant's appeal are dismissed, respectively.

2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by each party.

purport, purport, and.

Reasons

1. The grounds for appeal by the plaintiff and the defendant citing the judgment of the court of first instance are not significantly different from each argument in the court of first instance, and even if the evidence submitted to this court is neglected, the fact-finding and judgment of the court of first instance are justified.

Therefore, the reasoning for this court’s explanation is as follows. The reasoning for this court’s explanation is as follows: (a) the plaintiff and the defendant added the judgment of the first instance court as to the new argument in this court; and (b) the reasoning for the first instance judgment is the same as that for the first instance judgment, and thus, they are cited by the main sentence of Article

2. On the fourth and seventh sides of the judgment of the court of first instance, the part written after dismissal is added to the Defendant’s monthly payment in front of “is residing.”

In the fourth instance judgment, Gap evidence No. 17 shall be added to the "founded ground for recognition" in the fourth instance judgment.

On March 24, 2014, following the end of the first instance judgment, “the fact that L requested the Defendant to extinguish the right of retention” is added.

Part VII of the judgment of the first instance is as follows from the third to the seventh.

According to the above facts of recognition, although L has accepted a loan exceeding the necessary use for the preservation of each real estate of this case, which is an object of custody, after entering into the agreement in this case, even if L has withdrawn its consent through a request for extinguishment of lien on March 24, 2014, it is reasonable to view that L cannot lend beyond the necessary use for the preservation of each real estate of this case. Nevertheless, continuously leasing I, J, and K out of each real estate of this case to S, etc. is contrary to Article 324(2) of the Civil Act, and thus, it is deemed that L has violated the duty of lien holder, since it has been lent beyond the necessary use for the preservation of custody without the consent of L or the plaintiff who is the owner.

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim to extinguish the right of retention is legitimate.

참조조문

-민법 제324조 제2항

-민사소송법 제420조

유사 판례

-서울동부지방법원 2019.06.07 2018나28299

-대법원 2009. 9. 24. 선고 2009다40684 판결

-대법원 2013. 4. 11. 선고 2011다107009 판결

-대전지방법원 2015.10.28 2014가단39456

-수원지방법원 2019.02.14 2018나73898