(영문) 전주지방법원남원지원 2019.01.30 2018가단1187

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) 전주지방법원남원지원 2019.01.30 2018가단1187

건물명도(인도)

Text

1. The Defendants jointly do so to the Plaintiff:

(a) deliver each real estate listed in [Attachment] list;

(b) KRW 3,313,00; and

Reasons

1. The parties' assertion

A. The Plaintiff is the owner of each real estate of this case who purchased each real estate listed in the list of [Attachment] from E on June 7, 2018 (hereinafter “each real estate of this case”) and completed the registration of ownership transfer on July 4, 2018.

However, the Defendants occupied and used each of the instant real estate without legitimate title.

Therefore, the Defendants, who is the owner of each of the instant real estate, shall deliver the instant real estate to the Plaintiff, and jointly pay the amount equivalent to KRW 3,313,00 (total sum of the rent equivalent to the Plaintiff’s acquisition of ownership from July 4, 2018 to November 21, 2018) and the amount equivalent to the annual rent of KRW 715,00 per month from November 22, 2018 to the completion of delivery.

B. Defendants 1) The opposing power of the lease agreement is the husband and wife. The Defendants concluded a lease agreement with E, the owner of each real estate of this case, and each of the instant real estate from January 29, 2018 to January 28, 2020, setting the lease term of KRW 5,00,000, and thereafter, filed an application for the registration of business under Article 3(1) of the Commercial Building Lease Protection Act. The Defendants also asserted the validity of the said lease agreement against the Plaintiff. As such, the Defendants may assert the validity of the said lease agreement, the abuse of rights (Defendant C) was already sold each of the instant real estate to the Defendants’ side before entering into the sales contract with the Plaintiff on each of the instant real estate. Accordingly, the Defendants’ side was registered as a business operator of each of the instant real estate.

Nevertheless, the Plaintiff’s seeking delivery of each of the instant real estate to the Defendants and payment of money equivalent to the rent constitutes abuse of rights.

2. Determination

A. Determination as to the cause of the claim pertains to each of the instant cases.

참조조문

-상가건물 임대차보호법 제3조 제1항

유사 판례

-전주지방법원남원지원 2019.02.13 2018가단11702

-광주지방법원 2020.11.24 2020가단503000

-대구지방법원 2019.04.05 2018가단117859

-울산지방법원 2018.08.07 2018가단54219

-서울고등법원 2018.08.17 2017나2035876