(영문) 광주지방법원 2017.12.06 2017가단18601

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) 광주지방법원 2017.12.06 2017가단18601

건물명도

Text

1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

Reasons

1. Facts of recognition;

A. As to the real estate listed in the attached list (hereinafter “the instant real estate”), the registration of establishment of a right to lease on a deposit basis for the best order of the Defendant with the right to lease on a deposit basis (No. 19226, Dec. 21, 2001; No. 19226, Nov. 15, 2001; hereinafter “registration of establishment of a right to lease on a deposit basis”) was completed.

B. The instant real estate was sold to the Plaintiff on August 3, 2007 in the procedure for the compulsory auction of real estate C and D (combined) real estate (hereinafter “instant auction”), and on August 20, 207, the registration of ownership transfer was completed in the name of the Plaintiff on August 20, 2007.

C. The Defendant did not demand a distribution at the instant auction procedure.

The plaintiff and the defendant filed a lawsuit against the defendant for the cancellation of the registration of chonsegwon and the non-existence of the obligation to return the lease on a deposit basis (hereinafter "the first lawsuit"). The plaintiff asserted that "the defendant completed the registration of the lease on a deposit basis in this case even though he did not have concluded the lease on a deposit basis with E, the owner of the real estate in this case," but the court of the first lawsuit rejected the plaintiff's claim on June 19, 2009, and dismissed the plaintiff's claim on the ground that "the defendant concluded the lease on a deposit basis with E on November 15, 2001 and completed the registration of the lease on a deposit basis of the lease on a deposit basis in this case." The above judgment became final and conclusive around that time.

Luxembourg filed a lawsuit against the Plaintiff on the claim for the return of deposit on the deposit basis of the instant chonsegwon (hereinafter “second suit”), and the Plaintiff asserted the same as the first suit, but the court of first instance in the second suit did not accept the said claim on the ground that the said claim contradicts the res judicata effect of the judgment in the first suit.

Judgment of the second suit.

유사 판례

-광주지방법원 2017.09.12 2016가단22870

-광주지방법원순천지원 2016.03.03 2015가단15478

-광주지방법원순천지원 2019.08.28 2019가단2784

-광주지방법원 2015.04.23 2014가단55258

-광주지방법원 2014.05.20 2013가단65227