logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 부산지방법원동부지원 2015.09.11 2014가단217053
건물명도
Text

1. The Defendants are in turn indicated in the separate sheet Nos. 1, 2, 3, 4, and 1 among the real estate listed in the separate sheet to the Plaintiff.

Reasons

1. The parties' assertion that the plaintiff is the owner of the real estate listed in the separate sheet (hereinafter "the real estate of this case") and the defendants filed a claim against the defendants for the delivery of the part occupied by the defendants among the real estate of this case, and the defendant asserts to the purport that the defendant has the right of possession as the lien holder who lawfully acquired the right of retention by making the claim for the construction price of this case against the non-party C, the former owner of the

2. Determination

A. We examine the determination of the cause of the claim, the absence of dispute between the parties, the entry of the evidence No. 1, and the purport of the entire pleadings. The Plaintiff sold the instant real estate in a voluntary auction procedure on April 23, 2014, and the same year.

5. 9. Acquisition of ownership by the Defendants, and the fact that the Defendants possessed the instant real estate is recognized, barring any special circumstance, the Defendants are obligated to deliver the instant real estate to the Plaintiff.

B. Determination as to the Defendants’ assertion 1) According to the Defendants’ respective statements in Eul evidence Nos. 1, 2, 5, and 6 (including each number of pages), Nonparty C, the owner of the instant real estate, prepared a written notice of non-party C’s payment of KRW 182,00,000, which was not paid out of the construction cost of the charnel Corporation among the new construction of the instant real estate, to Defendant B on January 10, 2013. Nonparty C, on October 15, 2012, prepared a written statement of non-party C’s payment notice that the Defendants would pay KRW 182,00,000,000 to Defendant B by February 10, 2013. According to each of the above facts, the non-party C’s claim as to the construction cost of the instant real estate, which was not paid out of the painting construction cost of the instant real estate, and the construction cost of each of the instant real estate, as to Nonparty C’s each of the above facts as to Defendant C Co.

arrow