logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 인천지방법원 2017.05.18 2016가합2778
임대주택 갱신계약 불가 처분 무효
Text

1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

Reasons

Basic Facts

On November 19, 2014, the Plaintiff entered into a lease contract with the Defendant for the term of lease from October 1, 2014 to September 30, 2016 (hereinafter “instant lease contract”).

Since then, on December 9, 2013, the Plaintiff received a successful bid in his/her name at an auction for a building of 1,279 square meters and its ground (hereinafter “instant real estate”), and completed the registration of ownership transfer on the same day.

On the other hand, on July 20, 2016, the Plaintiff filed an application for the renewal of the instant lease agreement with the Defendant, and submitted the details of assets containing the instant real estate, and on August 9, 2016, the Defendant notified the Plaintiff on the ground that the asset standards under Article 47 of the Enforcement Decree of the Special Act on Public Housing are not satisfied.

[Grounds for recognition] The plaintiff asserts that the plaintiff's refusal to renew the lease agreement of this case is null and void, since the real estate of this case was merely title trust obtained from filial lighting Co., Ltd., and cannot be viewed as the plaintiff's assets, since the defendant judged that the assets standard under the Enforcement Decree of the Special Act on Public Housing did not meet the plaintiff's assets, since the plaintiff's failure to renew the lease contract of this case is judged as invalid.

However, in cases where a person who intends to purchase real estate in the real estate auction procedure obtains a decision of permission for sale under his/her name under a title trust agreement with another person and pays the purchase price in full at his/her own expense, ownership of real estate for auction purpose is acquired by the title holder regardless of whether he/she bears the purchase price (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2006Da73102, Sept. 10, 2009), so long as the Plaintiff received a successful bid for the real estate in his/her name and completed the registration

Furthermore, this shall not apply.

arrow