logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 서울동부지방법원 2020.07.10 2019가단10829
건물명도(인도)
Text

1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

Reasons

1. Basic facts

A. On January 13, 2016, the Plaintiff completed the registration of transfer of ownership based on sale on January 4, 2016, 2016, as to the building D (hereinafter “instant building”) in Yangju City, as indicated in the separate sheet (hereinafter “instant building”).

B. Around March 6, 2013, the Defendant was awarded a contract for construction of the instant building with E Co., Ltd., but it was not paid the price, and filed a lawsuit seeking payment of KRW 340,525,360 (construction price) against E Co., Ltd. on or around July 31, 2013, and received a payment order order on August 6, 2013, and confirmed on October 1, 2013.

C. As of the date of closing argument of the instant case, the Defendant occupies the subject-matter of the instant case by using a correction device.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1, Eul evidence Nos. 1 and 3, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination

A. The Plaintiff’s claim for the construction price that the Defendant asserted was extinguished by extinctive prescription since May 2013.

In addition, the defendant lost possession by transferring possession of the object of this case to F, and as the defendant used the object of this case to F beyond the use necessary for its preservation without the consent of the plaintiff, the defendant's right of retention was extinguished.

Nevertheless, as the Defendant asserted the right of retention and possesses the subject matter of this case, it is necessary to deliver the building of this case to the Plaintiff and return unjust enrichment from the possession of the building of this case.

B. Determination 1: (a) the Defendant, around March 2013, filed a lawsuit seeking the payment of construction price of the instant building around July 31, 2013, and received a payment order decision on August 6, 2013; and (b) the fact that October 1, 2013 became final and conclusive is as seen earlier; and (c) barring any special circumstance, the Defendant, barring any special circumstance, takes a lien on the instant object to secure a claim for the construction price incurred in relation to the instant building.

arrow