(영문) 수원지방법원 2018.04.27 2017나79844

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 2018.04.27 2017나79844

건물명도

Text

1. The part against the plaintiff against the defendant C among the judgment of the court of first instance shall be revoked.

2. Defendant C shall list the Plaintiff’s attached list.

Reasons

1. The reasons for the acceptance of the judgment of the court of first instance are as follows, and the reasons for the judgment of the court of first instance are the same as the reasons for the judgment of the court of first instance, and they are cited in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420

2. Under the fourth page of the parts to be dried or added, the phrase “each real estate” shall be read as “each real estate (hereinafter “the apartment of this case”)”.

Part 7 "T" shall be raised to "AH".

Part 7, Part 12 and Part 10 "No. 11" shall be deemed to be "No. 111".

The following shall be added between pages 7, 17 and 18:

Article 2 Subparag. 9 of the Rules on Housing Supply (wholly amended by Ordinance of the Ministry of Construction and Transportation No. 137, Jun. 15, 1998) provides that "the owner of a non-family household means the head of a household, including the head of a household (including the spouse of the head of a household who is not registered in the same resident registration card as the head of a household and the spouse of the head of a household who is the same household as the head of a household) who does not own a house."

According to the above evidence, Gap evidence, and the purport of Gap evidence No. 20 and the whole pleadings, defendant C's spouse's transfer of ownership with respect to 25.42 square meters on the ground of U-owned Ma-Maon on August 6, 1991, but completed the registration of ownership transfer on March 17, 199. The defendant C shall be deemed to have lost the requirements for non-family households as he owns another house during the term of lease and thus the third lease contract was not implicitly renewed. Thus, the above argument by defendant C is without merit.

3. In conclusion, the plaintiff's claim against the defendants is justified, and the part against the plaintiff against the defendant C in the judgment of the court of first instance is unfair in conclusion. Thus, the plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

참조조문

-민사소송법 제420조

-주택공급에 관한 규칙 제2조 제9호

유사 판례

-창원지방법원 2017.08.17 2017나272

-서울고등법원 2019.02.19 2018나2031352

-부산고등법원 2016.10.19 2016나52494

-춘천지방법원강릉지원 2019.01.15 2018가단31534

-서울고등법원 2017.10.19 2017누65007