(영문) 서울북부지방법원 2020.02.12 2019가단110299

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) 서울북부지방법원 2020.02.12 2019가단110299

건물퇴거

Text

1. The defendant shall leave the attached real estate marked with the indication of the attached real estate.

2. The costs of the lawsuit are assessed against the defendant.

3...

Reasons

1. The facts of recognition ① The Plaintiff and the Defendant completed the marriage report on December 19, 190 and filed a lawsuit of divorce and consolation money, etc. with the Seoul Family Court on April 28, 2010. On December 14, 2010, the Seoul Family Court rendered a judgment to the effect that “The Plaintiff and the Defendant are divorced. The Defendant shall pay consolation money of KRW 25 million to the Plaintiff. The Defendant shall designate the Plaintiff as the person with parental authority and the custodian of the child. The Defendant shall pay the Plaintiff child support for KRW 300,000 each month from October 18, 2010 to July 22, 2022, the said judgment became final and conclusive around that time.”

② The Plaintiff and the Defendant resided together in the real estate indicated in the attachment (hereinafter “instant real estate”) during the marital life.

In the registry concerning the real estate of this case, the Plaintiff stated that the registration of ownership transfer was completed on November 5, 2001 on the grounds of sale as of October 25, 2001, and there was no change in ownership until the date of closing argument of this case.

③ Even after the divorce as above, the Defendant continued to reside in the instant real estate until the date of closing the argument in this case.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, entry of Gap evidence 1 to 3, purport of the whole pleadings

2. According to the above facts of recognition as to the cause of the claim, the defendant is obligated to leave the real estate of this case owned by the plaintiff.

As the plaintiff and the defendant have been divorced by law, the defendant cannot be deemed to have a right to reside in the real estate of this case owned by the plaintiff unless the plaintiff gave his consent.

3. The defendant's assertion is alleged to the purport that the real estate in this case was actually owned by the defendant, but is in title trust in the future of the plaintiff, but there is no evidence to acknowledge it, and the defendant's above assertion

4. The conclusion is that the plaintiff's claim is reasonable, and it is so decided as per Disposition.

유사 판례

-서울북부지방법원 2020.02.12 2019가단110299

-서울북부지방법원 2017.03.28 2016가단17399

-대구지방법원 2017.07.13 2016가단20579

-서울중앙지방법원 2016.09.08 2014나19737