(영문) 인천지방법원부천지원 2015.11.04 2015가단8959

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) 인천지방법원부천지원 2015.11.04 2015가단8959

건물명도등

Text

1. The plaintiff's claims against the defendants are all dismissed.

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

Reasons

1. Comprehensively taking account of the overall purport of the pleadings in Gap evidence No. 1 as to the claim against defendant B, the plaintiff acquired the ownership of the instant house in the process of public sale around March 26, 2015, and the defendant B filed a move-in report with respect to the real estate listed in the separate sheet on March 2, 2008 (hereinafter “the instant house”) (hereinafter “the instant house”).

The Plaintiff asserted to the effect that Defendant B occupied and used the instant house from April 8, 2015 to the present date, and sought payment of the amount of unjust enrichment deemed as unjust enrichment equivalent to the transfer and rent of the instant house against Defendant B.

In light of the fact that Defendant C stated that “Defendant B was a woman of D living together with Defendant C from 2007 to 2007, and only made a move-in report on the instant house and actually did not reside.” Defendant B’s moving-in report on the instant house is difficult to acknowledge that Defendant B occupied or used the instant house from April 8, 2015 to the present day, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge this differently. Accordingly, the Plaintiff’s assertion on a different premise is without merit.

2. Determination as to the claim against Defendant C

A. In full view of the purport of the entire pleadings as to the evidence No. 1 of the judgment on the cause of the claim, the Plaintiff purchased the instant house during the public sale process on March 26, 2015 and paid the price, and completed the registration of ownership transfer on April 8, 2015, and Defendant C made a move-in report on the instant house on April 7, 1995, and recognized the fact that he occupied the instant house and occupied it until now.

According to the above facts, Defendant C is obligated to deliver the instant house to the Plaintiff, who is the owner of the instant house, and to pay unjust enrichment equivalent to the rent of the instant house, unless there are special circumstances.

have an obligation to take place.

B. As to the assertion by Defendant C, Defendant C has an opposing power regarding the instant housing.

유사 판례

-서울중앙지방법원 2019.06.21 2017나47948

-서울중앙지방법원 2017.06.27 2016가단5171275

-부산지방법원 2014.12.19 2014나5156

-인천지방법원부천지원 2016.06.29 2015가단24807

-청주지방법원 2017.09.21 2016나15113