(영문) 춘천지방법원 원주지원 2018.03.20 2016가단30554

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) 춘천지방법원 원주지원 2018.03.20 2016가단30554

토지인도

Text

1. The defendant shall be the plaintiff.

A. Of the 1,768 square meters prior to Gangnam-gun C, the attached sign No. 1,2,3,4,5,6,6,7,7,8,9,10 shall also be indicated in the attached Form No. 1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9,10.

Reasons

Basic Facts

A. The Plaintiff is the owner of each real estate listed in the separate sheet No. 4 (hereinafter collectively referred to as “each of the instant real estate”).

B. On May 17, 2012, the Plaintiff and the Defendant drafted a lease agreement (hereinafter referred to as “instant lease agreement”) with the Defendant, setting the lease agreement that the Plaintiff, for one year from May 17, 2012 to May 16, 2013, set the lease term of each of the instant real estate as KRW 1,00,000 per annum without a lease deposit (hereinafter referred to as “instant lease agreement”).

C. Since May 16, 2013, the Plaintiff continuously requested the Defendant to restore each of the instant real estate to its original state and deliver it to the Defendant.

[Ground of recognition] The plaintiff is the owner of each real estate of this case, as stated in Gap's evidence Nos. 1 through 3 (including a branch number; hereinafter the same shall apply), and the purport of the whole argument of the parties. The plaintiff is the owner of each real estate of this case, although the lease contract of this case was terminated, the defendant possesses each real estate of this case by owning trees, vinyl houses, and PVC pipe on each of the real estate of this case.

3) Accordingly, the Defendant is obligated to collect and remove each of the instant real estate trees, vinyl houses, and PVC pipes, respectively, and deliver each of the instant real estate to the Plaintiff, and return unjust enrichment from the possession of each of the instant real estate. The gist of the Defendant’s assertion 1) The Defendant invested KRW 54,950,000 in each of the instant real estate, thereby improving it into high-quality land, and the increased value of KRW 15,440,000 exists.

Therefore, the plaintiff is obligated to repay the beneficial cost to the defendant, and the defendant is the above beneficial cost.

유사 판례

-대전지방법원천안지원 2014.02.14 2013가합594

-광주지방법원목포지원 2020.04.08 2019가단53755

-춘천지방법원 2019.01.23 2018나57

-춘천지방법원 2017.12.06 2016가단3877

-전주지방법원 2019.09.25 2019가단9059