(영문) 창원지방법원통영지원 2015.05.19 2015가단1337

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) 창원지방법원통영지원 2015.05.19 2015가단1337

건물명도

Text

1. The Defendant shall order the Plaintiff to order the building indicated in the attached list.

2. The costs of the lawsuit are assessed against the defendant.

3...

Reasons

1. In full view of the purport of Gap evidence No. 1 and all pleadings as to the cause of the claim, the plaintiff is the owner of the building listed in the separate sheet (hereinafter "the building of this case") and the defendant possessed it without the plaintiff's permission. Thus, the defendant is obligated to order the plaintiff to suspend the building of this case, barring special circumstances.

2. Judgment on the defendant's assertion

A. The defendant asserts that the plaintiff corporation's director and the lessee of the building of this case occupy the building of this case on the ground that the principal claim for transfer price of 3,500,000 won exists.

However, according to the evidence evidence Nos. 2 through 4, C leased the instant building from the Plaintiff on December 31, 2013, with the annual rent of KRW 8 million, the lease period from December 31, 2013 to December 31, 2014, and the said lease contract terminated due to the expiration of the lease period.

In light of this, the defendant is not able to occupy the building of this case regardless of whether he/she owns the claim for the transfer price against C. Since there is a lack of assertion and proof as to the circumstance that the plaintiff can occupy the building of this case if he/she is the creditor of the transfer price for C, the above argument by the defendant

B. On November 201, 2014, the Defendant asserts that: (a) although the Plaintiff’s representative D and C occupy the instant building, taking measures, such as cutting electricity, cutting water, and gas supply blocking, and theft of documents related to the complaint, seeking an evacuation of the said building is an abuse of rights.

However, it is difficult to readily conclude that only the images of No. 1-5 No. 1-5, as alleged by the Defendant, D, and C committed an illegal act as alleged by the Defendant. If the Defendant is the Plaintiff, D, and C, it is insufficient to assert and prove the circumstance that the possession of the instant building is possible. Therefore, the Defendant’s above assertion is without merit.

3. According to the conclusion, the plaintiff's claim of this case is accepted for reasons.

유사 판례

-대구지방법원서부지원 2014.12.17 2013가단28869

-대구지방법원경주지원 2019.04.02 2018가단803

-수원지방법원여주지원 2017.05.25 2016가단7847

-대구지방법원 2015.10.23 2015가단11059

-전주지방법원정읍지원 2015.11.04 2015가합132