(영문) 대전지방법원 2015.01.16 2014나103587

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) 대전지방법원 2015.01.16 2014나103587

손해배상(기)

Text

1. The part of the judgment of the court of first instance against the plaintiff, which orders payment below, shall be revoked.

The defendant.

Reasons

1. Basic facts

A. On August 27, 2012, the Plaintiff is the Seo-gu, Daejeon (hereinafter “instant building”) from Nonparty E on August 27, 2012.

1) No. 102 (hereinafter “instant store”)

A) A person who engages in the sale of clothes in the name of “D” by setting the deposit amounting to KRW 50 million, monthly renting KRW 3.5 million, and the lease period from August 27, 2012 to KRW 36 months. (2) A voluntary auction procedure for part of sectional ownership of the instant building was commenced with the Daejeon District Court F. In the above auction procedure, the Defendant completed the registration of ownership transfer for the reason of sale due to voluntary auction with Nonparty G, along with Nonparty G, on the first floor Nos. 101 and 110 of the instant building.

C. A dispute relating to the instant building 1) Since March 2012, the lien holder established a lien office with the 1st floor 110 of the instant building, and the instant building was under the control of access to the building by blocking the inside and outside of the instant building by putting an emergency exit leading to the 1st floor and underground floors into the sn beam beam beamline. (2) Meanwhile, the Defendant and other successful bidders (hereinafter “Defendant, etc.”) who were awarded a successful bid in the instant real estate auction procedure filed an application for a real estate delivery order against the lessee of the sold portion to the Daejeon District Court H, and then entrusted the execution to the execution officer under the said court 2012 main 4656. However, the said execution officer was unable to process the said lien on the ground that the aforementioned lien holder was not in possession of the goods subject to execution, and the said real estate delivery protocol prepared at the time was installed at the time, and entered the entire place of execution by setting up the closing office and the place of execution.

3 Defendant et al. against lien holders K. of the Daejeon District Court.

유사 판례

-서울중앙지방법원 2017.05.16 2015가단134373

-수원지방법원 안양지원 2014.11.28 2014고정542

-수원지방법원 성남지원 2015.06.17 2015고단602

-대전지방법원 2014.05.14 2013가단219316

-대전지방법원 2014.04.02 2013고정1649