(영문) 전주지방법원 정읍지원 2017.02.16 2015가단10743

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) 전주지방법원 정읍지원 2017.02.16 2015가단10743

비닐하우스 철거 등

Text

1. The Defendant (Counterclaim Plaintiff) against the Plaintiff (Counterclaim Defendant)

(a)the ground level of each land listed in separate sheet 1 to 5;

Reasons

A principal lawsuit and a counterclaim shall be deemed simultaneously.

1. Comprehensively taking account of the overall purport of the evidence submitted by the Plaintiff regarding the cause of the principal lawsuit, the following facts are acknowledged: (a) the real estate listed in the separate sheet (hereinafter collectively referred to as “instant real estate”) owned by the Plaintiff; (b) the Defendant owned the vinyls on the ground; (c) from April 1, 2015, at least owned by the said vinyls with materials installed in the said vinyls, and cultivated crops and possessed all the said real estate; and (d) the amount of unjust enrichment equivalent to the rent from the possession and use of each of the instant real estate from April 1, 2015 to April 1, 2015, as described in the Disposition 1.

According to the above facts, the Defendant is obligated to remove the instant vinyl to the Plaintiff, remove the instant vinyl, remove or gather crops and materials in the said vinyl, deliver the instant real estate, and pay an unjust enrichment equivalent to the rent due to the possession and use of the said real estate from April 1, 2015 to the completion date of delivery of the said real estate.

2. Determination as to the defendant's defenses and grounds for counterclaims against the defendant's main claim

A. The purport of the defense or assertion was to allow the lessee of the said real estate, including the Defendant, to continue to use the instant vinyl house without removing it when purchasing the instant real estate from the Defendant.

Therefore, in a case where the terms of the sales contract on the instant real estate between the original and the Defendant (hereinafter “instant sales contract”) are construed as removing the instant vinyl, the said contract is deemed null and void as a false conspiracy (the second preliminary assertion), or the Plaintiff’s demand for removal in violation of the said agreement is in violation of the agreement between the original and the Defendant, and thus, the said sales contract is rescinded.

(Ground of counterclaim). The installation cost of the vinyl of this case is more than the value of the real estate of this case.

유사 판례

-서울중앙지방법원 2014.11.20 2014가단5024504

-수원지방법원 여주지원 2017.01.10 2015가단23668

-수원지방법원 2018.04.19 2017나72911

-서울중앙지방법원 2014.01.16 2012가단194008

-수원지방법원 2018.02.14 2017가단21073