(영문) 광주지방법원 2018.05.30 2017나61804

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) 광주지방법원 2018.05.30 2017나61804

건물명도(인도)

Text

1. The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

2. In accordance with the expansion of the purport of the claim by this court, the defendant shall attached to the plaintiff.

Reasons

1. Basic facts

A. The Plaintiff is the owner who completed the registration of ownership transfer on October 5, 2016 with respect to the real estate listed in the separate sheet (hereinafter “instant real estate”).

B. The defendant currently occupies the real estate of this case.

C. The annual rent for the part of the first floor among the instant real property is equivalent to KRW 56,282,00.

[Ground of recognition] Unsatisfy, Gap evidence 1 to 3, the result of the appraisal of rent by the court of the first instance against Gap, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination as to the claim for extradition of the instant real estate

A. The fact that the plaintiff is the owner of the real estate of this case, and the fact that the defendant occupied the real estate of this case is the possession of the real estate of this case as seen earlier. According to the above facts, the defendant occupied the real estate of this case and thereby interferes with the plaintiff's ownership. Thus, barring special circumstances, the plaintiff is obligated to deliver

B. The defendant's defense 1) First of all, the defendant asserted that the right of retention for the claim for the construction cost of the building of this case has a legitimate right to possess it, but it is difficult to acknowledge it only by the evidence submitted by the defendant, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it. The defendant's defense is without merit. 2) Next, the defendant argues that since the defendant, despite being aware of the fact that the plaintiff did not have the right to possess the real estate of this case, he did not comply with the agreement to pay KRW 1.3 billion to human beings and nature and the defendant 600 million under the condition that the real estate of this case should be delivered from the defendant, it cannot be delivered the real estate of this case from the plaintiff until the payment of the above money is made. Thus, it cannot be recognized that the plaintiff agreed to pay KRW 600 million

유사 판례

-전주지방법원정읍지원 2015.11.04 2015가합132

-광주지방법원 2017.09.27 2017가단502052

-광주지방법원 2019.06.18 2018가단528488

-대전지방법원 2018.11.29 2017가단213101

-대구지방법원서부지원 2020.01.16 2018가단60950