(영문) 서울동부지방법원 2018.06.20 2017가단140368

beta

본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.

Text

Reasons

텍스트 조절

글꼴

크기(pt)

굵기

줄 간격

자간(%)

(영문) 서울동부지방법원 2018.06.20 2017가단140368

건물명도(인도)

Text

1. The defendant shall deliver to the plaintiff the real estate stated in the attached list.

2. The costs of the lawsuit are assessed against the defendant.

3...

Reasons

1. Basic facts

A. The Plaintiff is the mother of C, and C and the Defendant are married couple who reported marriage on October 2, 2012.

B. On March 5, 2012, the Plaintiff entered into a sales contract with the Korea Land and Housing Corporation on real estate listed in the separate sheet (hereinafter “instant real estate”) and provided it free of charge so that C and the Defendant can live in the said real estate and live in a marital life, after acquiring ownership on December 9, 2013.

C. On August 2017, C: (a) went to the instant real estate and was separated from the Defendant, and (b) filed a divorce lawsuit against the Defendant on September 11, 2017 (Seoul Family Court Decision 2017Ddan331609); (c) the Plaintiff requested the Defendant to transfer the said real estate, but the Defendant did not reside.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 8, Eul evidence No. 1, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination

A. According to the above basic facts, the defendant is obligated to deliver the above real estate to the plaintiff, the owner of the real estate of this case, unless there are special circumstances.

B. (1) As to the Defendant’s assertion on payment in kind, the Defendant lent KRW 30 million, which was loaned by the bank to the Plaintiff around February 2012, to the Plaintiff as the sale price of the instant real estate. The Plaintiff loaned KRW 1.2 million to the Plaintiff’s principal and interest on each month’s loan to KRW 1.2 million to KRW 1.35 million, and the Plaintiff agreed to repay the money borrowed by transferring the ownership of the said real estate to the Defendant if it is possible to resell the said real estate. As such, the Plaintiff was entitled to possess the instant real estate.

However, there is not sufficient evidence to acknowledge that the Plaintiff and the Defendant entered into an accord and satisfaction agreement with the Plaintiff on the sole basis of the evidence Nos. 2, 3, and 5. The Defendant’s assertion is without merit without further examination.

(2) As to the claim for the loan of use, the Defendant may allow the Defendant to gratuitously use and benefit from the instant real estate.

유사 판례

-전주지방법원 2018.09.06 2017가단23884

-창원지방법원 2015.11.03 2015가단4194

-대구지방법원서부지원 2019.09.26 2018가단56852

-울산지방법원 2019.12.05 2018가단69204

-서울남부지방법원 2018.07.18 2017가단24650