logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 전주지방법원 2015.12.22 2015가단11566
토지인도
Text

1. The defendant is among the real estate listed in the attached list to the plaintiff.

(a) the delivery of land No. 1;

(b) No. 2. Buildings.

Reasons

1. Facts of recognition;

A. On October 31, 2010, the Plaintiff entered into a contract with the Defendant on the part of the Defendant, instead of having the Defendant use a rent for three years for the purpose of owning a building, under which the Plaintiff would pay the tax imposed on the instant land and restore the land to its original state upon the termination of the lease agreement or transfer the building newly built on the instant land to the Plaintiff if both parties agreed to do so (hereinafter “instant contract”).

B. On March 201, the Defendant, upon delivery of the instant land under the instant contract, newly constructed a building listed in the separate sheet (hereinafter “instant building”) on the ground and using it together with the instant land. On December 22, 2013, the Defendant agreed to extend the instant contract for one year between the Plaintiff and the Plaintiff on the same terms and conditions, and to gratuitously transfer the instant building to the Plaintiff at the expiration of the contract term (hereinafter “instant modified contract”).

However, the Defendant did not pay the tax imposed on the instant land in violation of the instant contract and the instant modified contract, while on February 20, 2013, the Defendant leased the instant building to the New World Construction Co., Ltd. by setting the lease deposit amount of KRW 100 million and the lease term of two years.

[Ground of recognition] The fact that there is no dispute, Gap's 1 through 6, Eul's 5 (including above number), and the purport of whole pleading

2. Determination

A. We examine the judgment as to the cause of the claim. It is apparent that the period stipulated in the instant contract and the instant modified contract has expired. In this case, the Defendant agreed to transfer the instant building to the Plaintiff in the instant modified contract, as seen earlier. Thus, barring any special circumstance, the Defendant delivered the instant land to the Plaintiff, and the ownership transfer registration procedure as to the instant building is to be implemented.

arrow