logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 광주지방법원목포지원 2016.12.15 2015가합1005
건물명도
Text

1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

Reasons

1. The defendant's judgment on the defendant's main defense of safety is not the owner or possessor of the real estate stated in the separate sheet (hereinafter "the real estate of this case"). Thus, the lawsuit of this case is unlawful.

However, in a performance suit, the standing to be the defendant is the plaintiff's own claim and the judgment can be absorptiond into the judgment on the propriety of the claim, so the person alleged as the performance obligor is the legitimate defendant.

(see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 95Da18451, Nov. 28, 1995). Therefore, the issue of whether the Defendant is an owner or possessor of the instant real estate does not relate to the lawfulness of the instant lawsuit. Thus, the Defendant’s main defense against safety is without merit.

2. Judgment on the merits

A. Basic facts 1) On August 1, 2014, the Plaintiff leased the instant real estate from C with the lease deposit of KRW 20,000,000, monthly rent of KRW 3,000,000, and the lease term of KRW 1,000 from August 1, 2014 to May 30, 2019 (hereinafter “instant lease agreement”), and the lease deposit is “the instant lease deposit.”

3) On the same day, the Plaintiff paid KRW 15,00,000 out of the lease deposit of this case to C, and received the instant real estate from C and operated a ice factory on the said real estate (hereinafter “ice factory”).

(2) On September 5, 2014, while operating the ice Manufacturing Factory, the Plaintiff was unable to operate the ice Manufacturing Factory due to an accident, and upon C’s request, allowed C to operate the ice Manufacturing Factory.

C On October 15, 2014, after completing business registration in the instant real estate, the Defendant had the Defendant operate the ice Factory.

3 If the Plaintiff completely recovers from the Defendant, who represented C around September 11, 2014, until September 12, 2016, the Plaintiff leased the instant real estate again to the Plaintiff and transferred the said real estate to C. The Plaintiff was unpaid out of the lease deposit of this case to C. 5,00.

arrow