beta
Text
1. The defendant shall deliver to the plaintiff the building indicated in the attached list.
2. The costs of the lawsuit are assessed against the defendant.
3...
Reasons
On April 9, 2014, the Plaintiff purchased the building listed in the separate sheet (hereinafter “instant building”) from the Defendant and completed the registration of ownership transfer in the future of the Plaintiff. The Plaintiff consented to allow the Defendant to reside free of charge in the instant building even after completing the registration of ownership transfer for the instant building, and the Plaintiff submitted the instant complaint claiming that the Defendant did not deliver the instant building to the Plaintiff even after the expiration of December 31, 2014, which was the deadline for allowing the Plaintiff to reside free of charge, and the delivery of the duplicate of the complaint to the Defendant is neither disputed among the parties, nor can it be recognized by comprehensively taking account of the overall purport of the entries and arguments in subparagraphs A and 2.
According to the above facts, it appears that the Plaintiff and the Defendant concluded a loan agreement for use of the building of this case between the Plaintiff and the Defendant, and that the said loan agreement was terminated upon arrival of the agreed period or the Plaintiff’s declaration of termination. Thus, the Defendant, who occupied the building of this case, is obligated to deliver the building of this case to the Plaintiff seeking delivery of the building of this case on the ground of the termination of the loan for use with the Defendant, unless there exist
The defendant alleged that the building of this case was sold to the plaintiff on the condition that the building of this case was sold free of charge until the defendant's circumstances were unreshed, and that the defendant could not deliver the building of this case to the plaintiff until 8 million won was paid facility expenses paid by the plaintiff. However, the defendant sold the building of this case to the plaintiff under the
Since there is no evidence to acknowledge each of the above arguments by the defendant that he paid the facility cost of eight million won or more, the above argument by the defendant is rejected.
The plaintiff's claim of this case is reasonable.