logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 춘천지방법원강릉지원 2015.07.01 2014가단3180
토지인도 등
Text

1. 피고는 원고에게 동해시 C 대 276㎡ 중 별지 감정도 표시 ㄷ, ㄹ, ㅂ, ㅅ, ㅊ, ㅋ, ㅌ, ㅍ, ㄷ의...

Reasons

1. Facts of recognition;

A. On December 24, 1990, the Plaintiff completed the registration of transfer of ownership on the ground of a consultation division on May 15, 1984 with respect to C & 276 square meters (hereinafter “instant land”).

나. 피고는 1998. 3. 24. 이 사건 토지 중 별지 감정도 표시 ㄷ, ㄹ, ㅂ, ㅅ, ㅊ, ㅋ, ㅌ, ㅍ, ㄷ의 각 점을 순차로 연결한 선내 (나) 부분 67㎡(이하 ‘선내 부분’이라 한다) 지상 시멘트블록조 스레트지붕 단층 주택(이하 ‘이 사건 건물’이라 한다)을 매수하여 현재까지 소유하고 있다.

C. On behalf of the Plaintiff, the Plaintiff’s mother died while leasing part of the instant land to the Defendant and the instant land and being paid rent of KRW 100,000 through KRW 150,000 each year. The Defendant did not pay rent to the Plaintiff for three years after June 13, 201.

As a result of the instant complaint, the Plaintiff expressed his/her intent to terminate the lease agreement on the part of the instant land pursuant to Articles 641 and 640 of the Civil Act on the grounds of the Defendant’s delinquency in rent, and on April 28, 2014, a duplicate of the complaint was served on the Defendant.

[Recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap's statements in Gap's 1 to 6, 10 to 12, and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination

A. According to the above facts finding as to the cause of the claim, the lease contract between the plaintiff and the defendant on the part on the ship among the land of this case was terminated by the plaintiff's declaration of termination on the ground of the defendant's delinquency in rent. Thus, the defendant is obligated to remove the building of this case to the plaintiff and deliver the part on the ship among the land of this case

B. As to the Defendant’s assertion 1), the Defendant asserted that the Plaintiff concluded a loan agreement on the part on the ship between the Plaintiff’s mother and the instant land after purchasing the instant building, but there is no evidence to acknowledge it. 2) Furthermore, the Defendant exercised the right to purchase the instant building.

arrow