logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
Text
Reasons
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 울산지방법원 2015.10.21 2015가단3593
건물명도 등
Text

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

2. The cost of the lawsuit is supported by the participation.

Reasons

1. Determination as to the cause of claim

A. The registration of ownership transfer was completed on April 7, 2005 in the name of the supplementary intervenor on the instant real estate stated in the separate sheet. 2) On April 12, 2006, the ownership transfer registration was completed on April 17, 2006 in the name of two LAWD Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “two LAWD”), the name of the trustee on April 18, 2006, the name of the KAW trust Co., Ltd. as the trustee on April 17, 2007, the name of two LAWDD as the owner on May 17, 2007, the name of the New real estate trust as the trust owner on May 17, 2007, the name of two LAWD Co., Ltd. on April 1, 2009, the name of the trustee on April 1, 2009, and the name of the Plaintiff on June 27, 2012.

3) The Defendant occupies the instant real estate from January 6, 2012. [The fact that there is no dispute over the grounds for recognition, Gap evidence No. 1-4, and the purport of the entire pleadings]

B. The Defendant is obligated to deliver the instant real estate to the Plaintiff.

2. Determination as to the assertion by the Defendant and the Intervenor

A. On April 12, 2006, while the Defendant and the Intervenor resided in the instant real estate owned by the Intervenor, the Intervenor sold the instant real estate to two LAWD, and completed the registration of ownership transfer on April 12, 2006. The Intervenor continued to reside in the instant real estate even thereafter, and changed the status of KRW 70 million as the lessee after two LAWD acquired the ownership of the instant real estate. 2) The Intervenor subsequently leased the instant real estate to a third party, but the Intervenor continued to possess the instant real estate by allowing the Defendant, who is an employee of the Intervenor’s operating company.

3) At the same time, the Intervenor was entitled to receive deposit of KRW 70 million from the Plaintiff, but the Defendant or the Intervenor was obligated to deliver the instant real estate to the Plaintiff. B. 1) Even if the Intervenor resided in the instant real estate, the Intervenor was obligated to deliver the instant real estate to the Plaintiff.

arrow