(영문) 수원지방법원 2015.11.18 2015가단104868

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) 수원지방법원 2015.11.18 2015가단104868

건물명도

Text

1. The Defendants jointly deliver the buildings listed in the attached list to the Plaintiff.

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

Reasons

1. Facts of recognition;

A. On February 16, 2011, the Plaintiff purchased a building listed in the attached list (hereinafter “instant building”) as a voluntary auction procedure and owns it up to the present day.

B. The Defendants jointly possess the instant building.

[Ground of recognition] Unsatisfy, entry of Gap evidence 1, purport of whole pleadings

2. According to the above facts of determination as to the cause of the claim, the defendants occupy the building of this case owned by the plaintiff without any title, barring any special circumstance, the defendants are jointly obligated to deliver the building of this case to the plaintiff.

3. Judgment on the defendants' assertion

A. Defendant B’s assertion is in a de facto marital relationship with the Plaintiff from August 2008 to June 2013, and title trust was awarded to the Plaintiff with mutual cooperation. The instant building is subject to division of property, at least 1/2 of the shares of Defendant B, and Defendant B substantially controlled and managed the instant building from June 27, 2013, and leased 1 of the instant building to Defendant C around November 5, 2014, the Defendants are duly entitled to possess the instant building.

B. In light of the judgment, the fact that the Plaintiff independently purchased the instant building in the course of voluntary auction is as seen above, and the fact that Defendant B trusted the title of his 1/2 shares in the process of voluntary auction is insufficient to acknowledge it only by the entries in the evidence Nos. 1 and 2, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it. Rather, according to the entries in the evidence No. 19, Defendant B’s claim for consolation money and division of property [Ui District Court Decision 2013Ddan 11697, 2013Ddan 16814, Counterclaim)] filed against the Plaintiff, and the claim for division of property against Defendant B was dismissed on June 17, 2015, and thus, the Defendants’ assertion is not acceptable.

4. Conclusion, the plaintiff's claim of this case is justified.

유사 판례

-대구지방법원영덕지원 2017.05.16 2017가단10225

-수원지방법원안산지원 2016.11.30 2015가단17159

-서울서부지방법원 2015.10.07 2014가단40421

-수원지방법원안산지원 2016.11.10 2016가단11097

-수원지방법원 여주지원 2018.09.12 2018가단1713