(영문) 수원지방법원성남지원 2020.08.21 2019가단11745

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) 수원지방법원성남지원 2020.08.21 2019가단11745

건물명도 등

Text

1. The defendant shall be the plaintiff.

A. One floor of Cdong general steel structure, sand position plate, and one story of the real estate listed in the attached list.

Reasons

1. Facts of recognition;

A. On April 30, 2012, the Plaintiff, the owner of the real estate listed in the separate sheet,: (a) leased the instant corporeal movables listed in the separate sheet (hereinafter “instant corporeal movables”) on a monthly rent to D as KRW 1,100,000; and (b) D installed each of the instant corporeal movables listed in the separate auction list (hereinafter “instant corporeal movables”) on the instant warehouse, which are machinery for manufacturing the handbact; and (c) used the instant warehouse as a manufacturing factory.

B. On December 28, 2017, E, the Defendant: (a) was awarded the instant machine installed in the instant warehouse in the procedure for the auction of corporeal movables in Seongbuk-nam Branch of the Suwon District Court on December 28, 2017; and (b) continued to keep the instant machine in the said warehouse without concluding a lease agreement with the Plaintiff; (c) sold the instant machine to the Defendant on April 15, 2018.

[Ground of recognition] Unsatisfy, entry of Gap evidence 1 to 4, purport of whole pleadings

2. According to the above facts of recognition, the Defendant is obligated to deliver the instant warehouse to the Plaintiff seeking the exclusion of interference based on ownership and return unjust enrichment from April 15, 2018 to the completion date of delivery of the said warehouse.

The amount of profit from the possession and use of real estate shall be the amount of rent in ordinary cases, and it is reasonable to view the monthly rent of the real estate in this case as KRW 1.1 million in consideration of past rent, etc. (The plaintiff sought payment of rent calculated as KRW 60,000 per day, but did not submit any evidence to recognize the fact that the rent of the real estate in this case exceeds KRW 1.1 million per month in which D was paid, and thus, the claim for this portion is not accepted). The defendant is obligated to pay to the plaintiff the money calculated at the rate of KRW 1.1 million per month from April 15, 2018 to the date the warehouse is completed.

On the other hand, the defendant lost the shock part while the plaintiff kept the machinery of this case.

유사 판례

-수원지방법원성남지원 2019.06.14 2018가단9288

-수원지방법원 2021.03.25 2020구합68890

-의정부지방법원 2019.08.22 2018가단100588

-청주지방법원 2019.01.25 2018가단23933

-서울북부지방법원 2016.10.05 2015가합25291