(영문) 서울중앙지방법원 2017.11.30 2017가단5062583

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) 서울중앙지방법원 2017.11.30 2017가단5062583

건물명도(인도)

Text

1. The defendant shall deliver to the plaintiff the house indicated on the attached real estate.

2. The costs of the lawsuit are assessed against the defendant.

Reasons

1. Facts of recognition;

A. B filed for registration of preservation of ownership on April 1, 2004 with respect to subparagraph 301 and 302 of the aggregate building “D” (hereinafter “instant aggregate building”) constructed on the ground of Seodaemun-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government, Seodaemun-gu, Seoul Western District Court (Seoul Western District Court Decision 12129).

B. The defendant is called "302 house" among the aggregate buildings of this case.

the same year as the receipt of August 3, 2004 No. 29751 of the same registry office

5. 27. 27. The registration of ownership transfer was completed on the ground of sale.

C. The Plaintiff: (a) received on March 28, 2007, No. 12329 from the same registry office with respect to a house of 301 among the instant condominiums (a house marked with an indication of real estate; hereinafter “instant house”); (b)

3.5.The registration of ownership transfer has been completed on the grounds of sale.

The defendant occupies the house of this case.

【Ground of recognition】 The fact that there has been no dispute, entry of Gap's 1 through 10, the purport of whole pleading

2. The assertion and judgment

A. As seen earlier, the Plaintiff is presumed to have completed the registration of ownership transfer regarding the instant housing as the owner of the instant housing, and as seen earlier, the Defendant is obligated to deliver the instant housing to the Plaintiff, barring any special circumstance.

B. The defendant asserts that there is a right to possess the house of this case since he purchased and owns the house of this case from B.

The facts that the Defendant occupied the instant house are as seen earlier, and the facts indicated as “302” on the signboard attached to the instant house do not conflict between the parties, but on such circumstance alone, the Defendant cannot be deemed to have purchased the instant house from B, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it otherwise.

Furthermore, it is even.

유사 판례

-서울중앙지방법원 2019.05.07 2018가단5164554

-서울중앙지방법원 2012.03.30 2011가합22714

-부산고등법원 (창원) 2018.03.08 2017나22240

-서울중앙지방법원 2014.11.14 2013가단185599