logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 수원지방법원안양지원 2017.11.16 2017가단2814
건물명도
Text

1. The defendant shall deliver to the plaintiff the real estate stated in the attached list.

2. The costs of the lawsuit are assessed against the defendant.

3...

Reasons

1. Facts of recognition;

A. On December 21, 2012, the Plaintiff, as the owner of the real estate listed in the separate sheet (hereinafter “instant real estate”) began to reside in the said real estate on the condition that Nonparty C, the Defendant’s children, and the instant real estate are paid monthly rent of KRW 250,000 without a deposit.

B. The Plaintiff filed a lawsuit against Nonparty D and E regarding the name of the building on the instant real estate, which was the birth of Nonparty C, and entered into a lease contract again on the condition of Nonparty D’s deposit KRW 10,000,000,000, monthly rent of KRW 450,000, after obtaining a favorable judgment (U.S. District Court Decision 2014Dadan23254).

(hereinafter “instant lease agreement”). C.

After entering into the instant lease agreement, the Plaintiff withdrawn the said compulsory execution on April 15, 2015.

Nonparty C does not pay rent after May 2016, and the Defendant continues to reside after moving to the instant real estate on April 28, 2016.

[Ground of recognition] Unsatisfy, Gap evidence 1 to 5, Eul evidence 1 to 3 (including each number), the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination

A. According to the judgment on the cause of the claim, the above facts are examined, and the lease contract between the plaintiff and the non-party C was lawfully terminated due to the non-party C's default. Thus, the defendant who possesses the real estate of this case under the lease contract of this case has a duty to order the building of this case, barring special circumstances.

B. The defendant's assertion is alleged to the effect that the plaintiff paid 250,000 won per month to the non-party F, who is the plaintiff's husband, and agreed to reside in the real estate of this case during the defendant's remaining life, around December 2012. Thus, even if the defendant's above assertion was alleged, it shall be considered after the above arrangement.

arrow