(영문) 의정부지방법원 2014.05.27 2013가단36309

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) 의정부지방법원 2014.05.27 2013가단36309

건물인도(명도) 등

Text

1. The Defendant’s annual interest in KRW 8,462,00 to the Plaintiff (Appointed Party) from October 18, 2013 to May 27, 2014.

Reasons

1. Facts of recognition;

A. On February 21, 2012, the Plaintiff (Appointed Party; hereinafter referred to as the “Plaintiff”) completed the registration of ownership transfer of the instant real estate to the Selection Party C on February 21, 2012, as the owner of the instant real estate indicated in the separate sheet (hereinafter referred to as “instant real estate”) that is part of the E apartment comprised of 114 households, Dong-dong 14, Dong-dong, Nam-si, Namyang-si.

B. The Defendant asserted the right of retention and possessed and used the instant real estate since May 15, 2010.

C. From June 1, 2010 to February 20, 2012, the rent of the instant real estate is KRW 8,462,00, and the monthly rent from that to January 6, 2014 is KRW 469,00.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1, Gap evidence 10-1, Eul evidence 10-2, Eul evidence 1, 2, 7, and 11-2, the result of commission of appraisal of rent to appraiser F, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The plaintiff's assertion that the defendant without any title possessed the real estate of this case, the defendant alleged that he had a duty to deliver the real estate of this case to the plaintiff and the selected parties and return the money stated in the purport of the claim as unjust enrichment, and the defendant concluded the construction contract of this case with G around November 20, 207 and completed the construction work, but did not receive the construction cost of 255,480,000 won. Among them, the defendant did not receive the construction cost of 51,490,000 won for the real estate of this case and did not receive the construction cost of 51,490,000 won.

3. Determination

A. According to the evidence Nos. 3, 4, 5, and 11 of the judgment as to the cause of the claim, the Defendant, around December 2007, re-subcontracted and re-subcontracted a part of the construction work for the interior 14 households of A and B, Dong 14 (the building in this case belongs to the “B Dong” as at the time of marking) from the G who was awarded a subcontract for the construction of the household and interior interior gate of the building in this case.

The construction work has been suspended on March 2008 and has left the construction site, and the defendant shall pay the construction work price.

유사 판례

-의정부지방법원 2014.12.12 2014나7354

-서울중앙지방법원 2019.01.31 2018나18558

-인천지방법원 2014.08.22 2013가단71226

-의정부지방법원 2014.06.13 2013가합9380

-대전지방법원 2018.08.16 2016가단1622