(영문) 부산지방법원동부지원 2016.04.19 2015가단18758

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) 부산지방법원동부지원 2016.04.19 2015가단18758

건물인도 등

Text

1. The Defendant (Counterclaim Plaintiff) against the Plaintiff (Counterclaim Defendant)

(a) deliver the buildings listed in the separate sheet;

B. October 6, 2015

Reasons

A principal lawsuit and a counterclaim shall be deemed simultaneously.

1. Basic facts

A. On April 23, 2015, the Plaintiff, as the owner of the building listed in the attached list (hereinafter “instant building”), entered into a lease agreement to lease the instant building to E with the deposit deposit of KRW 10,000,000, monthly rent of KRW 600,000, and the lease period of April 15, 2015 to April 14, 2016.

B. On April 25, 2015, the Defendant drafted a lease agreement between D and D on a lessor A (the Plaintiff in the instant case), a rental deposit of 50,000,000 won, monthly rent of 150,000 won, and a lease agreement between April 25, 2015 and April 24, 2016 (hereinafter “the instant agreement”). D signed the said agreement on a lessor’s column.

At the time, the Defendant, in addition to confirming the copy of the Plaintiff’s identification card sent by D, paid deposit amounting to KRW 50 million to D without confirming the contract of this case to the Plaintiff.

C. On September 23, 2015, the Plaintiff sent to the Defendant a certificate of content that the instant building should be handed over by October 5, 2015, on the grounds that the instant contract is null and void. D.

The defendant currently occupies and uses the building of this case.

【Ground of recognition】 The fact that there has been no dispute, Gap's 1 through 5, Eul's 1 through 5 (including each number), the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination on the main claim

A. The summary of the plaintiff's assertion 1) The plaintiff's assertion is invalid as the contract of this case was forged, and the defendant resides without title in the building of this case owned by the plaintiff. Thus, the defendant is obligated to deliver the building of this case to the plaintiff and pay the amount of unjust enrichment equivalent to the rent. 2) The defendant's summary of the defendant's assertion is for the following reasons that the defendant's possession of the building of this case is based on a legitimate right of lease, and it

유사 판례

-서울중앙지방법원 2015.11.06 2015가단105177

-춘천지방법원강릉지원 2015.06.03 2014가단9584

-의정부지방법원 2015.07.03 2015가단5514

-대전지방법원 2015.05.26 2015가단6989

-대전지방법원천안지원 2019.02.12 2017가단112160