(영문) 대전지방법원 천안지원 2018.09.13 2018가단106469

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) 대전지방법원 천안지원 2018.09.13 2018가단106469

건물명도(인도)

Text

1. The part requesting restoration, among the lawsuits in this case, shall be dismissed.

2. The defendant shall be the plaintiff.

(a) Appendix 1 List;

Reasons

1. With respect to the legitimacy of the part of the lawsuit of this case, the purport of the lawsuit of this case concerning the lawfulness of the part of the claim for restoration to its original state shall be specified by clarifying the contents and scope of the claim in the civil procedure, so that it can be determined as its own. Where the purport of the claim is unspecified or unclear, the lawsuit shall be dismissed as unlawful.

(See Supreme Court Decision 2011Da28946 Decided March 14, 2013). The Plaintiff is demanding the Defendant to “reparing to the original state for the purpose of using a store among the retail stores of the first floor listed in the attached Table 1.”

However, the part of the claim for restoration stated in the purport of the claim cannot be deemed to have been specified solely by the statement that "the restoration to original state" as stated in the purport of the claim, and even according to the part of the claim cited in the purport of the claim, it merely stated to the purport that "the installation of a separate wall, the separation of electric installations, the removal of air conditioning facilities and various pipes, joints, etc. installed additionally, and the removal of the damaged part in the original state identical with the damaged part," and therefore, it cannot be deemed to have been specified to the extent that it does not interfere with the defendant's performance of obligations or compulsory execution, since the separate wall refers to what kind of separate walls (such as what form, material, thickness, etc. is sought) and what kind of electrical facilities should be separated by any means, and what additional installed freezing facilities, various pipes, joints, etc., and what parts mean the damaged part and what condition is identical with the original part.

Therefore, among the lawsuits of this case, the part of the claim for restoration of the original state is unlawful because the claim is not specified.

2. Part on delivery of the building and demand for money;

(a) Indication of claims: In addition, the causes of claims and the changes in Attached Forms 3 and 4 and 5 shall be described respectively;

(b).

참조판례

-대법원 2013. 3. 14. 선고 2011다28946 판결

유사 판례

-인천지방법원 2019.10.16 2019가단210399

-서울서부지방법원 2019.09.27 2019가단208802

-서울중앙지방법원 2015.06.30 2014가단220659

-서울중앙지방법원 2016.12.15 2016가단101288

-서울중앙지방법원 2018.04.04 2017가단5214582