(영문) 서울중앙지방법원 2018.02.13 2017나59217

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 2018.02.13 2017나59217

건물명도

Text

1. The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Defendant.

Purport of claim and appeal

[Claim]

Reasons

1. Basic facts

A. The Plaintiff is a child of the deceased C and D (after marriage on June 24, 1968, on October 11, 1976), and C married with the Defendant on August 1, 197, and died around 2012.

B. On July 31, 2001, the Plaintiff completed the registration of ownership transfer made on August 29, 1995 with respect to the real estate listed in the separate sheet (hereinafter “instant apartment”).

C. From around 2002, the Defendant resided in the apartment of this case with the deceased C. D.

On the other hand, the plaintiff was handed over the apartment of this case through provisional execution of the judgment of the first instance.

[Ground of recognition] Unsatisfy, entry of Gap evidence 1 to 4, purport of whole pleadings

2. The parties' assertion

A. The Plaintiff asserted that he had C and the Defendant use the apartment of this case owned by himself free of charge. The Defendant, without the Plaintiff’s permission, leased the apartment of this case to a third party, etc., caused the grounds for termination of the loan of use, and notified the Defendant of the termination of the loan of use after the lapse of the sufficient period for use and profit-making. Thus, the Defendant is obligated to deliver the apartment

B. The defendant's assertion that the apartment house of this case was held in title trust with the real estate acquired by C and the defendant with the monetary burden, and thus, the claim of this case on the premise that the real estate of this case is owned by the plaintiff is

Even if the apartment of this case is owned by the Plaintiff, since C and the Defendant’s funds invested as the purchase fund of the apartment of this case are KRW 147,106,790, it shall be deemed that the lease contract between the Plaintiff and the Defendant, whose deposit amount is the deposit, has been concluded implicitly.

Since the plaintiff's lawsuit of this case should be seen as the notification of termination of the lease contract, the lease contract for the apartment of this case was terminated, and the plaintiff is obligated to return the lease deposit to the defendant. Thus, the defendant is obliged to return the lease deposit from the plaintiff to the date of

유사 판례

-서울중앙지방법원 2017.08.09 2016가단5290213

-대전지방법원홍성지원 2017.11.21 2017가단4881

-수원지방법원 안산지원 2012.06.22 2011고단2193

-서울중앙지방법원 2020.07.24 2019나50795

-춘천지방법원속초지원 2016.05.17 2015가단511