(영문) 수원지방법원 2016.06.15 2014가단70913

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) 수원지방법원 2016.06.15 2014가단70913

건물명도 등

Text

1. The Defendants jointly deliver to the Plaintiff the real estate listed in the separate sheet.

2. Defendant B shall be the Plaintiff, Ga.

Reasons

1. Facts of recognition;

A. The Plaintiff, around October 2010 with Nonparty E, was in Mana relationship with Nonparty E, and around May 2013, and Defendant B was in Mana, and Defendant C and D are children of Nonparty C and D.

B. On April 2, 2012, the Plaintiff entered into a lease contract (hereinafter “instant lease contract”) with Nonparty F by setting the lease deposit amount of KRW 80 million and the period from May 15, 2012 to May 15, 2014 with respect to the instant real estate listed in the [Attachment List] owned by Nonparty F (hereinafter “instant real estate”), and concluded a lease contract with Nonparty F by setting the payment amount of KRW 337 million on June 17, 2014, and completed the registration of ownership transfer on the 20th of the same month.

C. The Defendants are residing in the instant real estate after the conclusion of the instant lease agreement.

After completing the registration of ownership transfer with respect to the instant real estate, the Plaintiff demanded the Defendants to deliver the instant real estate, and notified the Defendants to deliver content-certified mail on November 4, 2014.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap 1-3's entries, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The assertion and judgment

A. According to the above facts of determination as to the cause of the claim, the defendants possessed the real estate of this case without any title in relation to the plaintiff, barring special circumstances, the defendants are obligated to deliver the real estate of this case to the plaintiff who exercises the right to claim exclusion of disturbance as the owner of the real estate of this case, and the defendant Eul also obtains profits equivalent to the profits from the use of the real estate of this case by occupying and using the real estate of this case without any legal cause, and thereby causes losses equivalent to the above amount. Thus, the defendant Eul is obligated to return unjust enrichment equivalent to the profits from the use of the real estate of this case to the

In addition, the plaintiff is within his residence period against the defendant C and D.

유사 판례

-수원지방법원 2015.05.20 2014가단65140

-부산지방법원 2017.04.14 2016나49389

-서울남부지방법원 2017.08.22 2016가단244648

-광주지방법원 2017.09.27 2017가단502052

-의정부지방법원 고양지원 2018.08.22 2018가단74194