logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 부산지방법원 2019.06.14 2018나58271
건물명도(인도)
Text

1. The defendants' appeal is dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal are assessed against the Defendants.

3. The judgment of the court of first instance is ordered.

Reasons

1. The court's explanation on this part of the basic facts is the same as the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance, and thus, citing it as it is in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

2. Even if a co-owner owns shares in determination as to the cause of the claim, he/she cannot exclusively possess and benefit from the common property without consultation with other co-owners. Thus, even if his/her shares fall short of the majority, other co-owners may demand delivery or evacuation of the common property as an act of preserving the common property to a person who occupies the common property, even if his/her shares fall short of the majority;

(Supreme Court en banc Decision 93Da9392, 93Da9408 delivered on March 22, 1994). In light of the above legal principles, the Defendants, who are minority right holders, did not assert that they have legitimate title to occupy the instant building. As requested by the Plaintiff, Defendant B received from the Plaintiff the remainder of 30,285,714 won (=53 million won x 4/7) excluding the Defendants’ co-ownership share ratio among the lease deposit under the instant lease agreement, and at the same time, jointly deliver the instant building to the Plaintiff seeking delivery, as a preservation act of the instant real estate, which is jointly owned.

3. The reasoning for the court’s reasoning on this part of the Defendants’ assertion is as stated in the reasoning of the judgment of the first instance, except for dismissal or addition as follows. Thus, this part of the judgment is cited in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

The 8th day of the first instance judgment is as follows.

If a lessee has disbursed necessary expenses for the preservation of the object leased, he/she may demand reimbursement thereof to the lessor, and if the lessee has disbursed useful expenses, the lessor is obligated to repay the amount disbursed by the lessee or the increased amount thereof at the time of the termination of the lease (see Article 626 of the Civil Act).

arrow