beta
Text
1. The defendant shall be the plaintiff.
(a) deliver the real estate listed in the Schedule 1 and the machinery listed in the Schedule 2, and b.
Reasons
1. As to the cause of claim
A. In full view of the facts of recognition as to Gap's evidence Nos. 1 through 6 (including branch numbers), and the purport of the entire argument as to appraiser B, real estate listed in the separate sheet Nos. 1 and machinery listed in the separate sheet Nos. 2, together with a gas station (hereinafter "the gas station of this case"). The plaintiff purchased the gas station of this case in the public sale process on January 22, 2016. However, the defendant occupied the gas station of this case and operates the gas station business. The rent of the real estate of this case is the sum of KRW 60,193,00 for the period from January 22, 2016 to April 30, 2017, and from May 1, 2017 to May 3, 853,00.
B. According to the above facts of recognition, barring any special circumstance, the Defendant is obligated to deliver to the Plaintiff the real estate listed in the separate sheet No. 1 and the machinery listed in the separate sheet No. 2, and pay to the Plaintiff the amount equivalent to the rent calculated at the rate of KRW 3,853,00 per month from May 1, 2017 to the completion date of delivery of the said real estate.
2. As to the Defendant’s assertion, the Defendant spent KRW 7 million to recover the collapsed fire-fighting fence after renting the instant gas station. The Defendant has the right to possess the gas station of this case according to the lien based on the necessary cost reimbursement claim. ② Since the three main facilities for the Plaintiff seeking delivery are owned by the Defendant, the Plaintiff did not have the right to seek delivery of the two main facilities. ③ Since the Defendant occupied the gas station of this case by dividing it with C and D, it is unreasonable to seek delivery of the entire gas station of this case against the Defendant.
Since the evidence submitted by the defendant alone is insufficient to recognize that the defendant paid the restoration expenses of fire-fighting walls, the corrective and supplementary order of the Japanese fire-fighting team No. 2 is up to October 21, 2012 as the official document No. 200, Aug. 20, 2012.