(영문) 서울중앙지방법원 2016.11.04 2016가단5025075

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) 서울중앙지방법원 2016.11.04 2016가단5025075

건물

Text

1. Of the instant counterclaim, the part demanding KRW 66,500,000 shall be dismissed.

2. The Defendant (Counterclaim Plaintiff) B and the Defendant C.

Reasons

1. Facts of recognition;

A. On September 15, 2014, the Plaintiff entered into a sales contract with Nonparty E to purchase the buildings listed in the separate sheet (hereinafter “instant building”) at KRW 175,00,000 for the purchase price (hereinafter “instant sales contract”) under the brokerage of Licensed Real Estate Agent D, and paid all the purchase price to E by October 29, 2014, which is the remainder payment date, and completed the registration of ownership transfer as to the instant building on the same day.

B. Meanwhile, Defendant B bears 14,00,000 won out of the remainder and 19,000,000 won based on the instant sales contract and possessed the instant building with Defendant C’s consent.

C. The Plaintiff expressed his intent to terminate the loan for use of the instant building against the Defendants by serving a duplicate of the complaint of this case.

[Grounds for Recognition: Evidence Nos. 1, 3, 4, Evidence Nos. 1 to 4, and the purport of the whole pleadings]

2. Determination as to the claim on the principal lawsuit

A. According to the above facts, a loan agreement was concluded between the Plaintiff and the Defendants on the instant building owned by the Plaintiff, and it is reasonable to deem that the said loan agreement was terminated upon the Plaintiff’s declaration of termination. Therefore, the Defendants are obliged to deliver the instant building to the Plaintiff.

B. (1) The Defendants asserted that the instant building was jointly endeavored by Defendant B and the Plaintiff, and that the Defendants agreed to use the instant building until it was disposed of to a third party under subsequent consultation. However, the Defendants asserted that there was a legitimate title to occupy the instant building, but it is not sufficient to recognize the Defendants’ assertion on the said assertion merely by the descriptions of the evidence Nos. 2 through 4, and Nos. 7, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it. Thus, the Defendants’ assertion is without merit.

(2) The Defendants resolve the issue between the Plaintiff and Nonparty F.

유사 판례

-수원지방법원 2014.12.05 2014나22601

-전주지방법원 2015.02.12 2014가단10740

-창원지방법원마산지원 2017.06.08 2016가단10790

-서울서부지방법원 2017.05.18 2016가단19537

-대구지방법원 2020.04.23 2018가단21309