logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 수원지방법원안산지원 2015.02.11 2013가단30882
건물명도
Text

1. The Defendants shall deliver the buildings listed in the separate sheet to each Plaintiff.

2. The Defendants, each of the Plaintiff on August 2013, 2013.

Reasons

1. The facts of each claim in the separate sheet as to the cause of the claim do not conflict between the parties, or can be acknowledged in full view of the purport of the entire pleadings as a whole, barring any special circumstance, the Defendants are obligated to deliver buildings listed in the separate sheet (hereinafter “the instant building”) to each Plaintiff and return unjust enrichment equivalent to the rent calculated at the rate of KRW 99,600 per month from August 14, 2013 to the date the delivery of the instant building is completed.

2. The defendants are primarily asserted as to the defendants' assertion. The defendants are delivered the building of this case with the consent of use from the former owner D of the building of this case, and the construction of the facility that alters the purpose of the residential road using the residential facility in their own expenses and is currently in possession and use. Thus, the defendants are in a relationship of lease or loan of use with D, and the defendants have a right of retention against D (Article 626, Article 611 of the Civil Act). Accordingly, the defendants can oppose the plaintiff's claim for the name of the building of this case, who is the successful bidder.

Furthermore, the Defendants, as the possessor, have the right to demand reimbursement under Article 203 of the Civil Act and the right of retention against the Plaintiff. Accordingly, the Defendants, as the successful bidder, can oppose the Plaintiff’s claim for the name of the instant building.

However, the evidence presented by the Defendants alone is insufficient to acknowledge each of the above defenses by the Defendants, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge this. Thus, the above assertion by the Defendants is without merit without further review.

3. Accordingly, the Plaintiff’s claim against the Defendants is with merit.

arrow