(영문) 대구지방법원 2014.08.21 2013가단14344

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) 대구지방법원 2014.08.21 2013가단14344

건물명도

Text

1. The defendant is paid KRW 17,036,730 from the plaintiff and at the same time, the second floor of the building indicated in the attached Table to the plaintiff.

Reasons

1. Basic facts

A. On May 2005, the Plaintiff and the Defendant agreed to construct the second floor detached house building (hereinafter “instant building”) by bearing the construction cost on the land owned by the Plaintiff on the land in Daegu-gu, Daegu-gu, Seoul-gu, 2005. The Defendant performed and completed the said construction from around that time to August 2005, and completed registration of preservation of ownership on the instant building in the name of the Plaintiff on September 16, 2005.

B. From around that time, the Defendant occupied and used the second floor of the instant building from that time to that time.

[Reasons for Recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1-2, Gap evidence Nos. 2 and 3, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Judgment on the plaintiff's claim

A. The plaintiff asserted that the plaintiff and the defendant concluded a lease agreement with the defendant to use the second floor of the building of this case for five years from the completion date of the building of this case, and that the above lease agreement was terminated upon expiration of the term. The defendant's overdue rent of 31,781,840 won from August 10, 2005 to October 30, 2013, and KRW 33,952 from October 31, 2013, and the defendant's claim of KRW 37,036,730, including the construction cost against the plaintiff of this case, should be paid 17,036,730 won from the defendant's claim against the plaintiff of this case to 20,000,000 won, and the defendant's claim should be paid 17,036,730 won from the above money to October 31, 2013, and the defendant should be paid 301,2081.

B. In determining the claim for return of unjust enrichment equivalent to India and the rent or the rent, there is no evidence to acknowledge that there was an agreement between the Plaintiff and the Defendant on the rent agreement and the lease agreement with a five-year period as asserted by the Plaintiff, and thus, the Plaintiff’s claim for return of unjust enrichment equivalent to the rent or rent cannot be accepted.

However, the witness D.

유사 판례

-대구지방법원 2015.06.11 2014나15161

-부산지방법원 서부지원 2018.05.04 2017가단102066

-인천지방법원부천지원 2015.09.18 2015가단103113

-대법원 2018.09.13 2017다37454

-서울중앙지방법원 2020.05.22 2019가단5108490