(영문) 서울중앙지방법원 2018.03.29 2017나21236

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) 서울중앙지방법원 2018.03.29 2017나21236

건물명도

Text

1. The appeal by the defendant (appointed party) is dismissed;

2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the defendant (appointed party).

Reasons

1. Basic facts

A. The Plaintiff, as a purchaser of the building listed in the attached Table 1, which is an unauthorized building (hereinafter “instant building”), is registered as the owner of the instant building on the unauthorized Building Management Register.

B. The defendants are married and live in the building of this case.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, entry of Gap evidence 1 to 3, purport of the whole pleadings

2. Request for extradition based on ownership;

A. The plaintiff asserted that the plaintiff is the owner of the building of this case. Since the defendants occupy the building of this case without the plaintiff's consent, the defendants are obligated to deliver the building of this case to the plaintiff.

B. Even if a non-registered building is assigned to an unauthorized building, unless the registration of ownership transfer has been completed, it cannot be deemed that the owner of the building has a customary real right equivalent to the ownership to the transferee of the building in such an condition.

(See Supreme Court Decision 2007Da11347 Decided June 15, 2007, etc.). However, there is no evidence to deem that the Plaintiff completed the registration of ownership transfer concerning the building of this case. Thus, the above assertion based on the premise that the Plaintiff is the owner of the building of this case is without merit.

3. Request for extradition under the agreement;

A. Comprehensively taking account of the overall purport of the arguments in the evidence Nos. 4 and 5 of the judgment as to the cause of the claim, the Defendants, upon receiving the Plaintiff’s notice from the Plaintiff that the instant building would be unsatisfed, and on September 24, 2014, prepared and executed a letter stating that “to leave the instant building by October 15, 2014” (hereinafter “each letter of this case”) to the Plaintiff on September 24, 2014. According to the above facts of recognition, it is reasonable to deem that the Defendants agreed to deliver the instant building to the Plaintiff.

Therefore, the Defendants are obligated to deliver the instant building to the Plaintiff pursuant to the above agreement.

B. Determination of the Defendants’ assertion 1.

참조판례

-대법원 2007. 6. 15. 선고 2007다11347 판결

유사 판례

-서울중앙지방법원 2017.02.03 2016가단5153628

-대전지방법원홍성지원 2015.12.22 2015가단8513

-서울중앙지방법원 2015.05.22 2014나40847

-서울동부지방법원 2016.01.14 2015가단19545

-인천지방법원부천지원 2019.09.04 2018가단15552