(영문) 수원지방법원 2015.11.26 2014가단55631

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) 수원지방법원 2015.11.26 2014가단55631

건물명도

Text

1. Defendant (Appointed Party) shall deliver to the Plaintiff the real estate listed in the separate sheet.

2. The plaintiff's representative B.

Reasons

1. On August 19, 201, the Plaintiff was granted the registration of ownership transfer for the reason of the trust on August 7, 2009 with respect to the real estate listed in the separate sheet (hereinafter “instant apartment”).

Defendant (Appointed Party, hereinafter “Defendant”) occupies the apartment of this case from March 15, 2008.

[Reasons for Recognition] A1 and the Defendant is obligated to deliver the instant apartment to the Plaintiff, unless there are special circumstances, according to the purport of the entire pleadings.

Although the Plaintiff asserted that the Appointed B occupies the apartment of this case, there is insufficient evidence to acknowledge that the Appointed B occupies the apartment of this case independently from the Defendant (the Appointed B is the Defendant’s assertion that it is a de facto position of the Defendant). The Plaintiff’s claim against the Appointed B is without merit.

2. Lien, defense, etc.;

A. On November 2007, the Defendant was implementing a branch Es. A. A. A. A. A. The Defendant re-subcontracted the instant construction project by setting the construction cost from the A. Construction Co., Ltd. to the construction period from November 22, 2007 to April 6, 2008, and re-subcontracted the instant construction project by setting the construction cost from the A. Construction Co., Ltd. to the construction period of KRW 785,48,900, and the construction period of November 22, 2007.

In the event of failure to pay the construction cost to the defendant, the construction requested the defendant to pay 560 million won to the lender on March 21, 2008 and on March 24, 2008. In addition, the claim for the construction payment against the lender was transferred to the defendant.

In 2009, the lender had suspended the construction work on the said project due to the default of payment, and the sub-construction succeeded to the said construction work.

On May 2010, the defendant requested payment of KRW 374.6 million out of the claim for construction payment against the lender to SS Construction.

[Grounds for recognition] B 1, 4 through 8, 14, 15, purport of the entire pleadings

B. The defendant asserts civil lien, the apartment of this case.

유사 판례

-수원지방법원안양지원 2016.08.11 2013가단23974

-수원지방법원 2017.03.22 2016나17092

-의정부지방법원 고양지원 2018.10.10 2017가단90038

-서울동부지방법원 2018.10.26 2017가단12647

-서울동부지방법원 2017.02.02 2016노1109