logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 서울서부지방법원 2017.10.24 2017나1893
건물퇴거
Text

1. The defendants' appeal is dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal are assessed against the Defendants.

Purport of claim and appeal

1..

Reasons

1. The reasons for this court's acceptance of the judgment of the court of first instance are as follows, except for the addition of the following "2. Additional Judgment" as to the assertion that the Defendants stressed or added in this court, and therefore, they are cited in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

2. Additional determination

A. The Defendants asserted that they can exercise their right to preferential reimbursement regarding the proceeds from the sale of the instant land until the security deposit is returned. However, such right to preferential reimbursement is a right of statutory security in order to protect lessees, and it is a right separate from the opposing power, and thus, it is not recognized as having a right to preferential reimbursement. Accordingly, this part of the Defendants’ assertion is without merit.

B. In addition, the Defendants asserted that they should recognize opposing power against the Defendants in light of social norms, since they received a successful bid of the instant land at a lower price that the Plaintiff excluded from the instant building. However, a lessee who has the requisite for counterclaim and the fixed date is entitled to exercise preferential right to payment regarding the proceeds from the sale of the instant land, even in cases where only the relevant site is sold separately from a leased house (Supreme Court en banc Decision 2004Da26133 Decided June 21, 2007). In addition, even in cases where the land and a building belong to the same owner but the owner changes due to the execution of mortgage, the building lessee is entitled to possess the building based on statutory superficies, and the building lessee cannot be deemed to have violated the social rules on the ground that it does not recognize opposing power against the lessee, and this part of the Defendants’ assertion is acceptable.

arrow