logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 서울서부지방법원 2015.10.29 2015나33230
건물명도
Text

1. The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Defendant.

Purport of claim and appeal

1..

Reasons

1. The reasons why the cited party of the judgment of the court of first instance states concerning the instant case are the same as the reasons stated in the part of the judgment of the court of first instance, except for addition of the following judgments, and thus, they are cited by the main sentence of Article 420

2. The Defendant: (a) even though a notary public did not borrow KRW 150 million from E, in form, prepared a notarial deed of a loan for consumption (hereinafter “notarial deed of this case”) in 2012 and No. 1163 of the New Village No. 2013, the said monetary loan agreement is null and void by means of false agreement; and (b) even if the said monetary loan agreement was paid to E by November 15, 2012 as construction cost and the actual construction cost was paid to E by November 15, 2012, it is necessary to prepare a notarial deed of this case, which is part of the false end of the E and M model, and thus, the Plaintiff’s declaration of intent on the notarial deed of this case is revoked by deception. (c) Since each building of this case is not owned by the Defendant, it is impossible to execute the said contract even if the N and the Defendant jointly occupies the contract.

As such, the plaintiff's claim cannot be complied with.

Therefore, as the plaintiff in collusion with E, there is no evidence to acknowledge that the notarial deed of this case was prepared, or that the notarial deed of this case was prepared, as the plaintiff borrowed KRW 150 million in collusion with E, ② there is no evidence to acknowledge that the notarial deed of this case was prepared, and ③ the possibility of execution of the judgment ordering delivery of each of the buildings of this case does not affect the validity of the claim of this case. Thus, the defendant's assertion is without merit.

3. In conclusion, the first instance judgment is just and the defendant's appeal is dismissed. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.

arrow