(영문) 서울중앙지방법원 2019.04.11 2018가단5070451

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) 서울중앙지방법원 2019.04.11 2018가단5070451

건물명도(인도)

Text

1. Each of the plaintiffs' primary claims against the defendant is dismissed.

2. The plaintiffs' conjunctive claim against the defendant.

Reasons

1. Basic facts

A. D acquired ownership of a building listed in the attached Form (hereinafter “instant building”) on July 20, 2007.

B. E received the registration of ownership transfer of the instant building from D on October 17, 2016 on the ground of “trade on October 4, 2016”.

C. F obtained on January 6, 2017, the decision to commence compulsory auction on the instant building (Seoul Central District Court G) and the registration of the decision to commence compulsory auction on the instant building was completed on the same day.

The Plaintiffs acquired the ownership of the instant building due to a compulsory auction on February 7, 2018 and completed the registration of ownership transfer on February 9, 2018.

E. On January 20, 2016, the Defendant: (a) made a move-in report with his/her domicile as the instant building; and (b) was living in the instant building.

[Reasons for Recognition] Unsatisfy, Gap evidence 1, Eul evidence 10

2. The parties' assertion

A. The plaintiffs primarily asserted that the building of this case is the owner of the building of this case who was the owner of the building of this case, and the right to possess the building of this case cannot be deemed to be the lessee lawfully leased from the previous owner, and thus, they are obligated to order the plaintiff. Preliminaryly, they asserted that, while the defendant submitted a report on the right and a demand for distribution in the auction procedure, the lease deposit stipulated in the lease contract of December 12, 2015, which was asserted by the defendant as of December 12, 2015, was stated as KRW 90,000, which was the lease deposit amount of KRW 90,000,000, which was alleged by the defendant, the plaintiff who succeeded to the status of E as the owner of the building of this case and the owner of the building of the building of this case, sought confirmation that the plaintiffs' obligation to return the lease deposit to the defendant

B. As to this, the defendant did not submit a report on the right and a letter of demand for distribution stating that the deposit for lease is KRW 50,000,000 in the auction procedure regarding the building of this case.

유사 판례

-부산지방법원동부지원 2015.10.15 2015가단7727

-부산지방법원동부지원 2016.06.16 2015가단18901

-수원지방법원 성남지원 2018.02.09 2017가단215895

-대전지방법원 2015.07.15 2014가합4327

-수원지방법원 2019.06.11 2017나82253