(영문) 서울서부지방법원 2015.12.02 2015가단17497

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) 서울서부지방법원 2015.12.02 2015가단17497

건물인도등

Text

1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

Reasons

1. The plaintiff's assertion is the owner of the building indicated in the attached list (hereinafter "the real estate of this case"). The defendant is the person who leased and resides the real estate of this case from the non-party C, claiming as the lien holder of the real estate of this case.

Ultimately, the Defendant did not have the right to possess the instant real estate to the Plaintiff, and thus, should deliver the instant real estate to the Plaintiff, and compensate the Plaintiff for the damages incurred by the unauthorized occupation.

2. The party's assertion and the judgment of this court are the owner of the real estate of this case, and the fact that the defendant occupied the real estate of this case as the husband B is no dispute between the parties.

However, the defendant asserts that the plaintiff's claim is unfair because the defendant and the defendant's husband B are possessed assistants of C who are the lien holders of the real estate in this case.

In 208, it is recognized in accordance with the evidence Nos. 2 through 9, as follows: (a) A corporation built the building including the instant real estate in 2008; (b) C owned a lien on the instant real estate based on the claim for the construction price; (c) B has the position of the Director of the Management Office of C; (d) there is a relationship with D Representative E, a joint lien holder for the instant real estate; (c) there is a notice to exercise a lien on the instant real estate; (d) there is evidence received expenses for exercising a lien from C; and (e) there is no evidence that the Defendant or B did not appear to have paid rent to C.

Ultimately, the Defendant is not an independent occupant, but a possession assistant of C, who is deemed to temporarily possess the instant real estate. Since the occupied assistant cannot be an independent partner, such as a request for extradition, it is difficult to accept the Plaintiff’s claim claiming the Defendant as an independent occupant.

3. Conclusion

유사 판례

-서울서부지방법원 2019.02.07 2018가단203015

-서울서부지방법원 2018.04.06 2017가단14201

-대법원 2017. 2. 8. 자 2015마2025 결정

-대법원 2017. 2. 8.자 2015마2025 결정

-의정부지방법원고양지원 2015.08.12 2015가단70269