logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 부산지방법원 2015.08.13 2015가단219036
건물명도
Text

1. The defendant is against the plaintiff succeeding intervenor.

(a) deliver the attached list building;

B. From July 10, 2014, the above buildings are located.

Reasons

1. Determination as to the claim of the Plaintiff’s succeeding intervenor

A. The plaintiff succeeding intervenor asserts as follows, and the defendant is deemed to have led to confession under Article 150 of the Civil Procedure Act.

(1) On July 6, 2013, the Plaintiff leased the instant building as indicated in paragraph (1) of this Article (hereinafter “instant building”) to the Defendant, with a deposit of KRW 50,000,000, monthly rent of KRW 3,300,000, and the period from October 10 to October 9, 2016, the Plaintiff occupied and used the instant building on October 10, 2013, and the Defendant occupied and used it until now after being handed over, and from July 10, 2014.

(2) The Plaintiff terminated the said lease by serving the instant complaint on the grounds of the Defendant’s delinquency in rent for more than two years.

(3) Meanwhile, on March 30, 2015, the Plaintiff’s successor purchased the instant building from the Plaintiff and completed the registration of ownership transfer on the same day.

B. If so, the Defendant is obligated to deliver the instant building to the Plaintiff’s Intervenor and pay the Plaintiff’s Intervenor the overdue rent or unjust enrichment equivalent to the rent in arrears at the rate of KRW 3,300,000 per month from July 10, 2014 to the completion date of delivery of the instant building.

2. The plaintiff's claim is without merit, since the plaintiff transferred the building of this case to the plaintiff's successor during the lawsuit of this case to the plaintiff's successor.

(A) The Plaintiff’s motion to withdraw from a lawsuit on July 16, 2015 was filed on the second date for pleading, but the withdrawal was not effective as the Defendant’s consent was not obtained). 3. As such, the Plaintiff’s motion to succeed to the lawsuit was accepted on the ground of its reasoning, and the Plaintiff’s motion is dismissed as it is so decided as per Disposition.

arrow