(영문) 수원지방법원 2019.10.24 2019가단543980

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 2019.10.24 2019가단543980

토지인도

Text

1. The defendant shall deliver to the plaintiff each real estate listed in the separate sheet.

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

3...

Reasons

1. Facts of recognition;

A. The registration of ownership transfer was completed on August 23, 201 with respect to each real estate listed in the separate sheet (hereinafter “instant real estate”) owned by C and D, the Defendant’s parents, and the F on June 30, 201 with respect to each real estate listed in the separate sheet Nos. 1 and 2 in the separate sheet (hereinafter “instant real estate”).

B. On April 8, 2019, E and F sold real estate indicated in the separate sheet to the Plaintiff, and on May 22, 2019, E and F completed the registration of ownership transfer on the instant real estate.

C. The Defendant occupied the instant real estate while residing in the attached list No. 2.

[Grounds for recognition] The descriptions of evidence Nos. 1 and 2, and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The assertion and judgment

A. According to the above facts of recognition, the defendant is obligated to deliver the real estate of this case to the plaintiff, except in special circumstances.

B. As to this, the Defendant asserts to the effect that, although the Plaintiff was making a lawsuit against E (Seoul High Court 2018Na2062141) against the Plaintiff on the ground that E had received a gift of the instant real estate by deceiving C and D, his parent, the Defendant purchased the instant real estate at a price that falls short of half of the market price, the Defendant had a legitimate right to possess the instant real estate until the completion of the said case.

However, the defendant cannot be deemed to have the right to possess the real estate of this case solely because the defendant is in progress against E, the former owner of the real estate of this case, and there is no other assertion or proof as to the legitimate possessory right. Thus, the defendant's above assertion is

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

유사 판례

-서울중앙지방법원 2020.12.24 2020가단5192989

-의정부지방법원고양지원 2020.05.20 2019가단75903

-수원지방법원 2018.11.27 2017가단37535

-서울남부지방법원 2019.02.15 2018가단215453

-부산지방법원 2017.12.14 2017가단5262