logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 전주지방법원 2015.02.12 2014가단10740
건물명도
Text

1. The plaintiff's claims against the defendants are all dismissed.

2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

Reasons

1. Basic facts

A. On May 3, 201, regarding the instant building, which was owned by Puuara Co., Ltd., the real estate auction procedure (this court D; hereinafter referred to as the “voluntary auction procedure”) commenced on May 3, 201. On May 2, 2012, the Plaintiff purchased the instant building in the instant voluntary auction procedure.

B. Defendant B was transferred to the building of this case on February 23, 2009 and thereafter resided with his children until then in the building of this case.

C. Meanwhile, on August 26, 2009, Onnuri Co., Ltd. filed a lawsuit claiming the confirmation of lien (this court 2009Gahap1787) against Puuna Housing Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “Non-Party Co., Ltd.”) against Puuna Housing Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “Non-Party Co., Ltd.”), and sentenced “Confirmation that there was a lien of 230,000,000 won for the instant building as preserved claim,” and the said judgment became final and conclusive around that time.

[Evidence] Evidence Nos. 1 through 3, Nos. 2 and 8, and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination as to the request for extradition

A. The main point of the Plaintiff’s assertion is (1) The Defendants asserted that the instant building was jointly occupied after they lent or leased the instant building from the Nonparty Company with the lien holder.

However, the non-party company, the lien holder, has lent or leased the instant building to the Defendants without the consent of the debtor or owner, and the Plaintiff claims the extinction of the lien of the non-party company, and sought delivery of the instant building to the Defendants.

(2) Defendant B’s assertion is the possession assistant of the non-party company, who is the lien holder of the building of this case, and does not independently occupy the building of this case. Defendant C does not reside in the building of this case. Thus, the Defendants do not have the duty to deliver the building of this case.

B. First of all, Defendant B.

arrow