(영문) 수원지방법원 2019.07.18 2018가단552024

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) 수원지방법원 2019.07.18 2018가단552024

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. C Forest land 2,963 square meters (hereinafter “instant land”) is owned by the Plaintiff. Of the foregoing land, there is a building owned by the Plaintiff (hereinafter “the instant building”) on the part of “A” indicated in the annexed drawings among the said land.

B. Within the instant building, the articles, such as sets and headings, which are equipment necessary for DNA examination (hereinafter “instant articles”) are kept.

C. From August 1, 2015, the Defendant, from August 1, 2015, engaged in D examination equipment leasing and program operation business, etc., and around February 2018, the Defendant leased D examination equipment to the Plaintiff.

[Ground of recognition] Items A 1 through 3, 6, 8, Eul evidence Nos. 1 and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The assertion and judgment

A. The gist of the Plaintiff’s assertion was that the Plaintiff had the Defendant use the instant building without compensation, and accordingly, the Defendant occupied and used the instant building while keeping it in custody.

In order to sell the instant land, the Plaintiff sent to the Defendant, as of June 11, 2018 and July 6, 2018, a written request for the termination of a loan for use and delivery of the instant building, and reached around that time.

Therefore, the Defendant is obligated to deliver the instant building to the Plaintiff as a result of the termination of a loan agreement for use, and pay the amount of money calculated by applying the rate of KRW 817,00,000 per month from November 28, 2018 to May 31, 2019, and the amount of money calculated by applying the rate of KRW 134,00 per month from June 1, 2019 to the completion date of delivery of the said building without title.

B. First of all, it is insufficient to acknowledge the above assertion only by examining whether the Defendant, while keeping the instant object in custody, occupied and used the instant object, and by making some of the testimony of the witness F, as stated in the evidence Nos. 3 and 8, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it.

Therefore, the plaintiff's above assertion that the defendant occupied and used the building of this case is further examined.

유사 판례

-대구지방법원상주지원 2017.08.09 2016가단430

-서울중앙지방법원 2017.04.26 2016가단5044410

-제주지방법원 2016.06.14 2015가단18397

-서울중앙지방법원 2015.06.25 2014가단152015

-수원지방법원 여주지원 2018.01.11 2017가단6308