logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 춘천지방법원강릉지원 2020.07.15 2019가단37713
건물명도(인도)
Text

1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

Reasons

1. Basic facts

A. The building listed in the attached list (hereinafter “instant building”) was owned by C, and the registration of ownership transfer of 4/5 shares and 1/5 shares was completed to D on May 4, 2009 on the ground of inheritance due to consultation and division.

B. On April 21, 2005, on the instant building, the registration of the creation of a right to collateral security with the maximum debt amount of KRW 21 million, the debtor E, and the FF association of the mortgagee, and on November 13, 2007, the registration of the creation of a right to collateral security with the obligor, E, and F association of the obligor and the mortgagee respectively was completed.

C. On March 2, 2011, a voluntary auction procedure was initiated with respect to the instant building (other sites and buildings that became joint collateral) on March 2, 201 by the FF association’s voluntary auction application based on the foregoing right to collateral security (hereinafter “instant auction”), and the Defendant was sold to the Defendant on February 17, 2012, and even until now owned by the Defendant.

【Reasons for Recognition】 The entry of evidence Nos. 1, 2-1, 3-1, and 3 of the evidence No. 1-2, and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination:

A. Although the Plaintiff’s assertion E and her husband D have separate property so they directly collect the claim, the FF Association unilaterally filed an application for the auction of this case where the person in charge of the FF Association incurred a significant damage to the Plaintiff for the repayment of the obligor E’s loan, and there is no consent from the Plaintiff. Therefore, the auction procedure of this case by tort, such as forgery, alteration, embezzlement, and gross negligence, is null and void. The Defendant is obliged to deliver the building of this case to the Plaintiff.

(A) The plaintiff argues that the auction of this case is null and void in the status of a person who is not a heir, as he/she actually succeeded to it by means of a false registration, even if the share of 4/5 is inherited to D.

B. Determination is based on the judgment, the mortgagee of real estate is entitled to file an application for voluntary auction to exercise the security right, and the debtor is entitled to file an application.

arrow