logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 서울중앙지방법원 2018.07.16 2017가단5196714
건물명도(인도)
Text

1. All of the plaintiff's claims are dismissed.

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

Reasons

1. Basic facts

A. The Defendant is an association established on March 27, 2007 pursuant to the Act on the Maintenance and Improvement of Urban Areas and Dwelling Conditions for Residents (hereinafter “Urban Improvement Act”).

B. On May 20, 2014, the Defendant entered into a contract for the supply of the instant apartment with C, and on March 6, 2017, the registration of ownership preservation was completed in the name of C with respect to the said apartment.

C. C did not pay C the share of the expenses stipulated in the above contract (hereinafter “instant share of expenses”) and the moving expenses leased by the Defendant, the lease deposit, acquisition tax, etc. for the tenant who paid on behalf of the Defendant. Accordingly, the Defendant requested C to pay C the payment order (Seoul Central District Court 2017 teas. 43579; hereinafter “instant payment order”) and paid C the amount of KRW 533,372,552 to the Defendant and the delayed payment damages therefrom was determined on March 17, 2017.

C. On March 28, 2017, the Defendant applied for a compulsory auction on the instant apartment with the title to execute the instant payment order, and there was a decision on March 28, 2017 (Seoul Central District Court D; hereinafter “instant auction procedure”).

In the instant auction procedure, the Plaintiff purchased the instant apartment and paid the sales price, and completed the registration of ownership transfer on September 25, 2017.

On the other hand, around March 23, 2017, the Defendant stated that the Defendant attached a warning to the present door of the instant apartment as follows: “I, on the other hand, have been placed “I, without receiving any other charges, etc. from the seller, for the instant apartment as it was under the exercise of the right of retention under the Civil Act” (hereinafter “this case’s warning”). “I, on the other hand, have been attached to “I, under the possession of the right of retention, absolute prohibition of entry into and departure from the household” (hereinafter “this case’s warning”). A statement of sale articles and an appraisal statement prepared at the instant auction procedure.”

E. On September 30, 2017, the Plaintiff was established by the Defendant with the key repairing machine.

arrow