(영문) 부산지방법원 2019.02.21 2018가단331296

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 2019.02.21 2018가단331296

건물명도(인도)

Text

1. The defendant shall deliver to the plaintiff the real estate stated in the attached list.

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

3...

Reasons

1. Basic facts

A. C, the former owner of the real estate listed in the separate sheet (hereinafter “instant real estate”), concluded a lease agreement with D, the Defendant’s spouse, with respect to the instant real estate, which is KRW 40 million, term of lease, from April 26, 2011 to April 25, 2013 (hereinafter “instant lease agreement”), and transferred the instant real estate to D.

B. On August 14, 2012, the Plaintiff succeeded to the lessor’s status while purchasing the instant real estate from C.

C. Although the instant lease agreement was explicitly renewed twice, the Plaintiff sent to D, on January 16, 2017, a content-certified mail that the Plaintiff had no intention to renew the instant lease agreement.

On June 7, 2018, the Plaintiff filed a lawsuit against D seeking the name of the building, etc., and the Suwon District Court rendered a judgment ordering D to deliver the instant real estate to the Plaintiff simultaneously with receiving KRW 40 million as lease deposit from the Plaintiff.

(2017da6326). D appealed, which is currently pending in the appellate court trial.

(Court 2018Na6926). e.

On July 10, 2018, the Plaintiff deposited the said KRW 40 million with D as the principal deposit.

(F) The court (No. 3550). (f) The Plaintiff filed an application with the court for the delivery execution of the instant real estate with the enforcement title of the said judgment, but, on July 16, 2018, the Plaintiff was registered with the Defendant as the representative of “E” on the business registration certificate on the books attached to the instant real estate, and became impossible to execute the said judgment on the ground that the Defendant was the representative of the Defendant on the card slip and the possession relation of the goods subject to execution was different.

G. The defendant is the spouse of D and has possessed the real estate of this case until now.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 4, purport of whole pleadings

2. Determination

A. According to the above facts, the instant lease was implicitly renewed twice, and the term of the lease.

유사 판례

-의정부지방법원고양지원 2019.05.10 2018가합1216

-수원지방법원 2018.06.07 2017가단6326

-수원지방법원 2016.02.05 2015나29265

-수원지방법원 2018.07.19 2018가단905

-서울남부지방법원 2019.05.14 2018가단20945