logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
Text
Reasons
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 대구지방법원김천지원 2019.11.27 2019가단33827
건물명도(인도)
Text

1. The Defendant (Counterclaim Plaintiff) receives KRW 50,000,000 from the Plaintiff (Counterclaim Defendant).

Reasons

A principal lawsuit and counterclaim shall also be deemed a principal lawsuit and counterclaim.

1. The following facts may be acknowledged in full view of the purport of the entire pleadings in each entry of Gap evidence 1, 2, and 3, and Eul evidence 1, 2, 3, 4, and 5, unless there is a dispute between the parties or in full view of the purport of the entire pleadings:

The Plaintiff completed the registration of ownership transfer in the name of the Plaintiff on November 28, 2017, on the real estate listed in the separate sheet (hereinafter referred to as “instant building”) on the ground of sale on March 4, 2015.

B. On January 25, 2018, the Plaintiff entered into a business consignment agreement with C (A: D and business registration number E) on the instant building, and delegated C (D) the authority related to the lease of the instant building to C (D).

C. On April 24, 2018, the Defendant entered into a lease agreement with C(D) that sets the lease deposit amount of KRW 50,000,000 with respect to the instant building, and the term of lease from April 27, 2018 to April 26, 2019.

(hereinafter referred to as the “instant lease contract”). D.

The Defendant paid KRW 5,00,000 as the down payment on the date of the instant lease agreement, and received a receipt issued in the name of C(D). On April 26, 2018, the Defendant remitted KRW 45,000,000 to the account in the name of C(D) as stated in the instant lease agreement.

The defendant has taken over the building of this case and has possessed it until now.

E. At present, the instant lease agreement was terminated upon the expiration of its validity.

2. The parties' assertion

A. The summary of the Plaintiff’s assertion 1 is that the Plaintiff did not enter into the instant lease agreement with the Defendant, and only delegated the instant lease agreement management to C, etc., and did not delegate the authority to conclude the instant lease agreement to C.

arrow