logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 광주지방법원 순천지원 2018.04.11 2017가단9279
건물인도등
Text

1. The defendant shall receive KRW 50,000,000 from the plaintiff, and at the same time real estate stated in the attached Table to the plaintiff.

Reasons

1. Basic facts

A. On June 27, 2017, the Plaintiff entered into a sales contract with C on real estate listed in the separate sheet (hereinafter “instant real estate”) and completed the registration of transfer of ownership as the receipt No. 25536, Jul. 28, 2016.

B. On April 18, 2016, the Defendant, after completing the move-in report with the instant real estate, has occupied it until now.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1, 2, Eul evidence 1, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The assertion and judgment

A. The gist of the parties' assertion argues that the Defendant entered into a lease agreement with C, the former owner, with respect to the instant real estate in KRW 60,000,000,000, but only paid KRW 50,000 out of the lease deposit, and thus, the Defendant is obligated to deliver the instant real estate to the Plaintiff and return unjust enrichment from illegal occupation.

The defendant asserts that the lease deposit under the lease contract entered into with C, the former owner, is not KRW 60 million, but KRW 50 million, and the defendant is a lessee with opposing power, so the defendant's obligation to deliver real estate and the plaintiff's obligation to return the lease deposit are in the simultaneous performance relationship.

B. As seen earlier, the Plaintiff owned the instant real estate and the Defendant possessed the said real estate. Therefore, the Defendant is obligated to deliver the instant real estate to the Plaintiff, barring special circumstances.

As to this, the Defendant simultaneously performed the Plaintiff’s obligation to return the lease deposit and simultaneously performed the obligation, the following circumstances, which are acknowledged as comprehensively taking account of the overall purport of the pleadings in the statement No. 2, and No. 1, i.e., the Defendant entered the instant real estate on April 19, 2015, and transferred the instant real estate to D Building and 202 on June 18, 2015, which is the former owner of the instant real estate.

arrow