(영문) 창원지방법원밀양지원 2015.11.11 2013가단401

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) 창원지방법원밀양지원 2015.11.11 2013가단401

건물인도 청구

Text

1. The plaintiff's successor's claim is dismissed.

2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the intervenor succeeding to the plaintiff.

Reasons

1. The Plaintiff’s Intervenor’s assertion that the Plaintiff’s succeeding intervenor is the owner who completed the registration of ownership transfer on the instant real estate on January 18, 2013, and the Defendant is in possession of the instant real estate from January 18, 2013 to the present date. The Defendant asserts that the Plaintiff’s succeeding intervenor, the owner of the instant real estate, has a duty to deliver the said real estate to the Plaintiff’s succeeding intervenor, and to pay the money calculated at the rate of KRW 8,373,333 (the amount equivalent to the rent for the said real estate from January 18, 2013 to September 19, 2014) and the amount equivalent to the rent for the said real estate from September 20, 2014 to the said delivery date.

2. In full view of the evidence No. 26 and No. 27’s statement, the registration of ownership transfer for the instant real estate was completed in the name of E non-Korean corporation after E non-Korean corporation completed the registration of ownership transfer under the name of E-Korean corporation on September 20, 207, and the registration of ownership transfer was completed in the name of the Plaintiff’s succeeding intervenor on January 18, 2013. However, E filed a lawsuit against E to seek cancellation of the registration of ownership transfer completed on October 16, 2014 with a favorable judgment rendered on October 16, 2014. Accordingly, the fact that the registration of ownership transfer was cancelled in the name of E-Korean corporation and the Plaintiff’s succeeding intervenor on May 15, 2015 on the premise that E is the owner of the instant real estate. Thus, the Plaintiff’s succeeding intervenor’s assertion to seek for delivery of the instant real estate and return of unjust enrichment is without merit.

3. Thus, the plaintiff's claim by the plaintiff succeeding intervenor is dismissed as it is without merit, and it is so decided as per Disposition.

유사 판례

-부산지방법원 2017.09.14 2016나50877

-인천지방법원 2015.07.14 2014가단76501

-수원지방법원 2017.01.19 2015가단135121

-서울중앙지방법원 2020.06.25 2019가단5106050

-서울남부지방법원 2021.02.04 2020나56818