(영문) 인천지방법원 2017.06.15 2015가단40103

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) 인천지방법원 2017.06.15 2015가단40103

건물명도

Text

1.(a)

The Defendant-Counterclaim Plaintiff (Counterclaim Defendant) received KRW 65,000,000 from the Plaintiff (Counterclaim Defendant) at the same time, and at the same time, Incheon.

Reasons

A principal lawsuit shall also be deemed a principal lawsuit.

1. Summary of the original defendant's assertion

A. (1) The defendant alleged as to the main claim of this case as to the plaintiff's main claim is not entitled to occupy the building of this case since he did not acquire the right of lease by concluding a lease agreement with D or E, an unauthorized representative who is not entitled to lease the building of this case owned by the plaintiff (hereinafter "lease Agreement").

Therefore, the defendant should deliver the building of this case to the plaintiff who is the owner.

The instant lease agreement was terminated even if the Defendant was the lessee, and since the Defendant’s duty to deliver the instant building and the Plaintiff’s duty to return the lease deposit are in the simultaneous performance relationship, the Defendant shall receive the lease deposit amounting to KRW 65 million from the Plaintiff at the same time deliver the instant building to the Plaintiff.

B. The Defendant’s assertion on the main counterclaim had the authority to conclude the instant lease contract on behalf of the Plaintiff.

Even if D did not have the right of representation, there was a reasonable ground to believe that the defendant had the right of representation.

Therefore, the defendant, who entered into a contract with D, has the right to occupy the building of this case as a legitimate lessee before the return of the deposit for lease from the plaintiff.

However, since the lease contract of this case terminated with the expiration of the period, the plaintiff should return the lease deposit amount of KRW 65 million to the defendant simultaneously with the delivery of the building of this case from the defendant.

2. Determination

(a) The following facts are not in dispute between the parties, or may be acknowledged in full view of the statements or images of Gap evidence Nos. 1, 2, 5, 8-10, and Eul evidence Nos. 1, 3, 6, and 8, and the purport of the entire pleadings as a result of the written appraisal by appraiser F:

(1) On May 1, 2014, the Plaintiff used the name of Jung-gu, Incheon (hereinafter “E”) in the name of Jung-gu, 334.2 square meters or less.

유사 판례

-의정부지방법원 2016.05.13 2016가단493

-수원지방법원성남지원 2013.11.29 2012가단37533

-대전고등법원(청주) 2019.08.21 2019나1559

-수원지방법원 2016.11.22 2016나6535

-부산지방법원 2021.04.29 2020가단340446