(영문) 전주지방법원 2018.09.06 2017가단23884

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) 전주지방법원 2018.09.06 2017가단23884

건물 퇴거

Text

1. The defendant shall be the plaintiff.

(a) deliver the real estate listed in the separate sheet;

B. From October 11, 2016, the above real estate.

Reasons

1. According to the purport of the entire entries and pleadings by Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 4 (including branch numbers, if any), the plaintiff acquired ownership by completing the registration of ownership transfer on October 11, 2016 with respect to the real estate listed in the separate sheet (hereinafter "real estate of this case"), and the defendant may recognize the possession of the real estate of this case from around 2015.

2. The Defendant asserts to the effect that the instant real estate had been leased from Lico Co., Ltd. and had already been removed from the instant real estate on April 13, 2018. Even if the Defendant believed the contract as it is, the Defendant did not lease the instant real estate from Lico Co., Ltd., but decided to use the instant real estate free of charge under a loan for use, and cannot oppose the Plaintiff, the owner, who was the Plaintiff. Even if the Defendant retired from the instant real estate on April 13, 2018, it still remains the goods used by the Defendant on the instant real estate, and thus, the Defendant continued to possess the instant real estate.

3. Therefore, the Defendant shall be liable to compensate the Plaintiff for damages incurred by unjust enrichment or illegal possession of the amount equivalent to the rent from October 11, 2016 to which the Plaintiff acquired the ownership of the instant real estate (it appears that the Plaintiff had held the de facto ownership of the instant real estate from before it was held) to October 11, 2016 (it is not possible to seek unjust enrichment or tort from the illegal possession of the instant real estate against a third party before acquiring the ownership by law).

The amount equivalent to the rent shall be determined at KRW 300,000 per month in consideration of the market price, etc. of nearby apartment.

4. If so, the plaintiff's claim is justified within the scope of the above recognition, and the remaining claims are made.

유사 판례

-의정부지방법원 2019.06.21 2018가단118022

-서울중앙지방법원 2014.10.23 2013가단231959

-서울중앙지방법원 2014.10.23 2013가단110953

-인천지방법원 2018.02.21 2016가단249563

-수원지방법원안산지원 2015.02.17 2013가단41141