(영문) 수원지방법원 2016.03.25 2015가단117475

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) 수원지방법원 2016.03.25 2015가단117475

건물인도 등 청구의 소

Text

1. The defendant shall deliver to the plaintiff the building indicated in the attached list.

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

3...

Reasons

1. The fact that the defendant resided in the building as stated in Paragraph (1) of this Article (hereinafter “instant building”) and occupies it is not a dispute between the parties. In full view of the purport of the entire pleadings in the statement No. 1-2, the plaintiff can be recognized as having completed the registration of ownership transfer on August 19, 195. Thus, barring any special circumstance, the defendant is obligated to deliver the instant building to the plaintiff according to the plaintiff’s claim for the exclusion of disturbance presumed to be the owner of the instant building.

2. Judgment on the defendant's assertion

A. The defendant asserts that the co-ownership relationship is owned by the plaintiff's external third village and constructed the building of this case together with the plaintiff's father, and actually owned the building of this case, but completed the registration of ownership transfer in the plaintiff's name for convenience. Since after the death of C, the plaintiff's co-ownership belongs to the co-ownership of the defendant and C's other inheritors, including the plaintiff, and it is unreasonable for the plaintiff to seek the delivery of the building of this case, which is a co-owner of some shares

As seen earlier, as long as the Plaintiff completed the registration of ownership transfer as to the building of this case under its sole name, the building of this case is presumed to be the Plaintiff’s sole ownership, and there is no evidence to recognize that the Defendant is one of the actual owners.

The defendant's above assertion is without merit.

B. The summary of the claim 1 of the lease deposit, management deposit and repair cost claim, the Defendant asserts that the Plaintiff is obligated to pay the Defendant the lease deposit amount of KRW 30 million, the Defendant’s repair charge of the instant building from around 1993 to 24 years, and the Defendant’s repair charge of KRW 21.6 million, and the Defendant’s repair charge of the instant building, KRW 27 million, and KRW 258.6 million.

유사 판례

-수원지방법원 2016.11.25 2016가단27067

-춘천지방법원속초지원 2015.08.13 2015가합51

-부산지방법원 2016.03.04 2015가단52448

-인천지방법원부천지원 2014.04.09 2012가단32692

-수원지방법원 2016.04.01 2015가단110894