logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 광주지방법원 2014.05.20 2013가단65227
부당이득금
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 June 10, 2002, the registration of ownership was completed on June 10, 2002 on the establishment of a neighboring mortgage in the name of the National Agricultural Cooperative Federation (hereinafter “CF”) with respect to the land owned by Nonparty C, and on March 4, 2003, the registration of ownership was completed on March 4, 2003 on the above land as to multi-household E-five-story multi-household 503 (hereinafter “instant building”). On March 4, 2003, the registration of ownership was completed on March 4, 2003 with respect to multi-household 503 (hereinafter “instant building”).

B. On March 10, 2003, the Defendant entered into a contract to establish a right to lease on a deposit basis with C on the instant building. On March 12, 2003, the Defendant completed the registration of the establishment of a right to lease on a deposit basis under the name of the Defendant, which was from March 10, 2003 to March 9, 2004, as the receipt of the registration office of the Gwangju District Court on March 12, 2003, and the provisional attachment registration of KRW 43,279,633 was completed with respect to the instant building under the name of the Agricultural Cooperatives Federation on January 12, 2004.

C. In the above D land owned by Nonparty C and multi-household housing E on the land, including the building of this case, the Plaintiff acquired ownership of the building of this case by obtaining a decision to permit sale of the building of this case on October 19, 2007 as the highest price buyer, and by obtaining a decision to permit sale of the building of this case on November 7, 2007.

On January 9, 2008, the Plaintiff filed an application against the Defendant for the extradition order on the instant building, and the said court issued the Defendant an order to deliver the instant building to the Plaintiff. The said order became final and conclusive around that time.

E. The Defendant, as the senior mortgagee for the instant building, has filed a claim for refusal of compulsory execution based on the above delivery order, even if the right to lease on a deposit basis has not been extinguished due to the execution of compulsory auction procedure for the instant building as to the instant building requested by the National Agricultural Cooperative Federation, which is a junior provisional attachment authority.

arrow