(영문) 부산지방법원 서부지원 2018.07.04 2018가단1047

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) 부산지방법원 서부지원 2018.07.04 2018가단1047

건물명도

Text

1. The Defendant (Counterclaim Plaintiff) shall deliver to the Plaintiff (Counterclaim Defendant) the real estate indicated in the separate sheet.

2...

Reasons

1. Determination on the main claim

A. According to the evidence No. 1 of the judgment as to the cause of the claim Gap, the plaintiff can recognize the fact that the plaintiff acquired the ownership by winning a successful bid for the real estate listed in the attached list in the voluntary auction procedure on June 12, 2002 (hereinafter "the real estate of this case"). The fact that the defendant resided in the above real estate and occupied and used it is no dispute between the parties.

According to the above facts, since the defendant occupies and uses the real estate of this case owned by the plaintiff without any title, it is obligated to deliver the above real estate to the plaintiff.

B. The defendant's argument that the defendant had resided in the real estate of this case without permission from C around October 2006, but there is no evidence to acknowledge it. Even if the defendant occupied and used the real estate of this case with consent from C, unless there is any evidence to prove that C had a possessory right against the plaintiff, the defendant's argument alone does not constitute a ground for refusing the plaintiff's claim.

2. On October 2006, the Defendant asserted that the Defendant is obligated to pay the Plaintiff KRW 6050,000,000,000,000,000 as the director’s expenses and the repair cost, since the Defendant had resided in the instant real estate with the consent of C with the approval of C around October 2006, while residing in the said real estate and spent KRW 4050,00 at the repair cost.

However, there is no legal ground for the Defendant to bear the Plaintiff’s director fee only on the grounds alleged by the Defendant.

In addition, as to the fact that the defendant paid the repair cost and the increase in the value thereof is in existence (see Article 203(2) of the Civil Act), it is not sufficient to recognize it solely with the descriptions of the evidence Nos. 1 to 3, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it.

Therefore, the defendant's assertion.

참조조문

-민법 제203조 제2항

유사 판례

-부산지방법원 2019.08.22 2018가단335328

-부산지방법원서부지원 2020.01.17 2019가단5763

-서울북부지방법원 2018.04.12 2017가단25243

-대구지방법원경주지원 2016.11.08 2016가단11267