(영문) 수원지방법원안산지원 2017.05.26 2016가단66141

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) 수원지방법원안산지원 2017.05.26 2016가단66141

건물명도

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. In full view of the purport of the entire pleadings in the evidence Nos. 1 and 2 as to the cause of the claim, the fact that the Plaintiff completed the registration of ownership transfer on the building listed in the separate sheet (hereinafter “instant building”) under the Plaintiff’s name on July 31, 2013 due to the sale on April 15, 2013, and the fact that the Defendant currently occupies the instant building is recognized.

Therefore, the defendant has a duty to deliver the building of this case presumed to be the owner of the building of this case to the plaintiff, unless there are special circumstances.

2. As to the judgment on the Defendant’s defense, the Defendant leased the instant building from the Plaintiff on May 2016, and even if not, on April 15, 2013, the Plaintiff purchased the instant building and held a title trust to the Plaintiff, while purchasing the instant building on April 15, 2013. The Defendant leased the instant building from a network D, which is entitled to manage the instant building as a title truster, and accordingly, the Defendant asserts that he/she has the right to possess the instant building.

First, as to the assertion of the lease agreement between the Plaintiff and the Defendant, Nos. 1 and 1 are not based on the Plaintiff’s seal but on the premise that the Plaintiff’s seal affixed to the lessor is not based on the Plaintiff’s seal, and that the Plaintiff’s seal affixed to the lessor is denied, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge the authenticity, and thus, it cannot be used as evidence, and there is no other evidence to prove that the Plaintiff and the Defendant entered into

Next, each statement of the health class, Eul evidence Nos. 2 through 4 (including the serial number) is insufficient to recognize the fact that the deceased and the deceased D had made a title trust agreement on the instant building between the plaintiff and the plaintiff, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it. Thus, the defendant's assertion is without merit, and the plaintiff is presumed to be the owner of the instant building.

3. Conclusion.

유사 판례

-서울남부지방법원 2015.10.22 2015가단28467 (1)

-수원지방법원 2016.03.25 2015가단117475

-대전지방법원 2017.11.30 2016가단219461

-서울북부지방법원 2020.01.14 2019가단105891