(영문) 부산지방법원 2015.06.16 2014가단84585

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 2015.06.16 2014가단84585

건물명도

Text

1. In the underground room of the real estate stated in the attached list to the Plaintiff, the Defendant indicated in the attached Form No. 1, 2, 4, 3, 1 and 5, 6, 8, 7, and 7.

Reasons

1. Comprehensively taking account of the overall purport of Gap evidence Nos. 1 and 2 (including each number) as to the cause of the claim, the plaintiff is the owner of the real estate listed in the separate sheet (hereinafter "the real estate of this case"). The defendant is the owner of the real estate listed in the separate sheet (hereinafter "the real estate of this case"), and the defendant is operating the restaurant by occupying the part of the ship connecting each point of the attached sheet Nos. 1, 2, 4, 3, 1, 5, 6, 8, 7, and 5 in the underground room of the real estate of this case (hereinafter "the part of the building

Therefore, the defendant is obligated to deliver the building portion of this case to the plaintiff.

2. Judgment on the defendant's assertion

A. The Defendant asserted the ratification of the sub-lease contract: “The Defendant transferred it from C, which was a lessee of the instant building, and the Plaintiff did not raise any objection to the sub-lease contract with the Defendant for eight years, and thus ratified the said sub-lease contract.” However, the Defendant’s assertion alone cannot be deemed as ratification of the said sub-lease contract, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it. Therefore, the Defendant’s assertion is without merit.

B. The defendant claiming the payment of deposit, beneficial cost, and damages, alleged that "the defendant paid 10,000,000 won to C the sublease deposit, and the beneficial cost was also paid to the building of this case. On July 2006, since the real estate of this case was destroyed by a fire and the equipment in the defendant's restaurant was destroyed by the fire, the plaintiff shall pay it to the defendant." However, there is insufficient evidence to acknowledge the defendant's assertion. Thus, the defendant's assertion is without merit.

3. In conclusion, the plaintiff's claim of this case is reasonable, and it is so decided as per Disposition.

유사 판례

-인천지방법원 2019.07.11 2019구합52755

-광주지방법원 2017.11.15 2017가단501097

-부산지방법원 2017.05.16 2016가단67072

-울산지방법원 2018.05.24 2017나25031

-수원지방법원안양지원 2019.11.21 2019가단108242