(영문) 대구지방법원 2018.02.21 2017가단126238

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) 대구지방법원 2018.02.21 2017가단126238

건물명도(인도)

Text

1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by each person;

Reasons

1. Facts of recognition;

A. On March 14, 2011, the Plaintiff leased the instant apartment Nos. 104, 1401 (hereinafter “instant apartment”) of Jung-gu, Daegu, a public constructed rental house that is qualified for occupancy to the Defendant as a homeless person, as a deposit for KRW 60,404,00, monthly rent of KRW 439,640, and the rental period of KRW 439,640, May 23, 2013.

(hereinafter “instant lease agreement”). The general conditions of the instant lease agreement stipulate that the Plaintiff may cancel or terminate the lease agreement if the lessee owns another house during the lease period.

B. However, on August 19, 2016, the Defendant acquired 1/2 shares of the multi-family house located in the Jung-gu Daegu-gu Seoul metropolitan district during the instant lease agreement.

C. The Plaintiff notified the Defendant that the contract was terminated on the ground that the Defendant’s acquisition of shares violated the general conditions of the instant lease agreement.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, entry of Gap evidence 1 to 6, purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination

A. The plaintiff asserts that the defendant should return the apartment of this case, since the contract of this case was terminated due to the defendant's loss of qualification as the defendant.

In regard to this, the defendant alleged that the above C's acquisition of shares in the house is based on the title trust, and thus, it does not lose the requirements for a homeless qualification.

B. Comprehensively taking account of the overall purport of the pleadings in each statement of Eul evidence Nos. 1 through 10 (including each number), it is recognized that Non-party D, a new father of the missionary organization belonging to the defendant, purchased the above C house with its own funds and entrusted one-half shares in the name of the defendant to the defendant in order to have the defendant manage the lease proceeds, and that the defendant returned the share again to D on May 10, 2017 when the problem of the qualification for the lease of the apartment of this case occurred due to the entrustment of the share.

According to this, the defendant is merely entrusted with the title of ownership of the above housing share, and it is used, profit, and owner.

유사 판례

-대구지방법원 2018.02.21 2016가단122147

-제주지방법원 2017.07.20 2016가합12379

-서울중앙지방법원 2016.09.08 2016가단32986

-서울남부지방법원 2015.04.16 2014가단67731

-서울중앙지방법원 2017.09.14 2017가단39694