(영문) 서울북부지방법원 2017.12.15 2017가단16973

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) 서울북부지방법원 2017.12.15 2017가단16973

건물명도등

Text

1. Defendant B:

(a) deliver five floors of the real estate indicated in the attachment;

(b) 1,100,000 Won;

Reasons

1. Determination as to the claim against the defendant B

A. The Defendant B, among the owners of the instant building, set the lease deposit of KRW 10,000,000 and the lease term of KRW 550,000,00, respectively, for each of the five floors of the instant building from KRW 1,000,000 (payment on September 24, 2016 to September 23, 2018).

The plaintiff purchased the above building from the owner of the above building, and succeeded to the status of the lessor by completing the registration of ownership transfer in the future of the plaintiff on September 30, 2016, but was not paid monthly from May 24, 2017 by the defendant B.

Secondly, the plaintiff terminated the lease contract on the ground of the delinquency in the rent of the defendant B, and seek the delivery of the leased object and the payment of the overdue rent.

B. Article 208(3)3 of the Civil Procedure Act of the judgment by publication

2. The plaintiff asserts that the defendant C occupies the leased object while exercising the lessee's right, and that he/she seeks to leave the leased object.

In full view of the statement and the purport of the argument in Gap evidence No. 4, the fact that the defendant C deposited KRW 9,00,000 equivalent to the balance of the lease deposit in the name of defendant C, and the fact that the defendant C filed a move-in report with the defendant B, who is the husband and the lessee, may not be deemed to possess the leased object. However, there is no other evidence to acknowledge the occupancy ( even if the defendant C resides in the leased object, it is merely assessed as the tenant's family or spouse, i.e., the possession of the occupying assistant, and cannot be deemed as an independent possession, and it is sufficient to solve the problem of the subjective expansion of the res judicata effect (the latter part of Article 218 (1) of the Civil Procedure Act) or the inheritance execution clause with respect to the occupying assistant.

참조조문

-민사소송법 제208조 제3항 제3호

-민사소송법 제218조 제1항

-민사집행법

유사 판례

-광주지방법원 2015.10.14 2014가단21569

-수원지방법원평택지원 2017.10.27 2017가단2484

-대구지방법원 2016.10.20 2016가단14321

-서울북부지방법원 2017.12.08 2017가단8453

-서울서부지방법원 2019.02.07 2018가단203015