logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 서울중앙지방법원 2017.07.18 2016가단5276804
건물명도
Text

1. The Defendants deliver to the Plaintiff the real estate indicated in the separate sheet, and deliver the said real estate from October 21, 2016.

Reasons

1. The following facts are either in dispute between the parties to the determination of the cause of the claim or in full view of Gap 1, 2, 3, and 2 evidence, the appraiser D's appraisal results, and the purport of the entire pleadings:

On April 30, 2015, LAW Co., Ltd. entrusted the real estate (hereinafter “instant real estate”) recorded in the attached Form to Hana Bank Co., Ltd. and transferred the registration of ownership transfer accordingly.

After that, on September 26, 2016, the Plaintiff purchased the instant real estate from the Han Bank from September 26, 2016, KRW 4.41 billion, and thereafter registered the transfer of ownership on October 21, 2016.

Meanwhile, from February 2016, the Defendants occupied and used the instant real estate as a gas station.

As of October 21, 2016, the appropriate rent for the instant real estate is KRW 15,589,100 per month.

According to these facts, the Defendants should deliver the instant real estate to the Plaintiff as the owner, and pay the Plaintiff KRW 15,589,100 per month as unjust enrichment from October 21, 2016 to the time of transferring the instant real estate.

2. Claims and determination by the Defendants

A. The Defendants, as the lessee, leased the instant real estate from AionP Co., Ltd., the former owner, and the Plaintiff succeeded to the lessor’s status, asserting that the Defendants had a legitimate title to possess the instant real estate.

According to the statement in Eul evidence No. 1, around February 2016, the Defendants leased the instant real estate and storage tanks, main abandoned facilities, tunnels, and other facilities, such as the instant real estate and storage tanks, and tunnels, by setting the rental deposit amount of KRW 200 million per month, KRW 16 million per month of rent, and the period of February 21, 2018.

However, such circumstance alone cannot be viewed as the Plaintiff’s succession to the lessor’s status of the lease agreement.

As seen earlier, LAWAW signed a lease agreement on April 30, 2015, prior to the conclusion of the lease agreement.

arrow