(영문) 창원지방법원 2015.07.23 2015가합32394

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) 창원지방법원 2015.07.23 2015가합32394

손해배상(기)

Text

1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

Reasons

1. The Plaintiff, who was the Plaintiff’s ownership, leased 65.0 square meters of 130.5 square meters of 2nd floor, 130.67 square meters of 2nd floor, and 114.68 square meters of 3rd floor (hereinafter “instant building”) to Nonparty D, and D operated a restaurant in the leased part.

hereinafter referred to as 'the first floor restaurant' for the leased part of D.

In the meantime, the Defendant was awarded a successful bid for the instant building through the public auction procedure, and occupied the first floor restaurant without permission even though it was delivered through the scambling lawsuit, the Defendant is obligated to return the key to the first floor restaurant to the Plaintiff.

2. According to the overall purport of each film and pleading in the judgment of the court below, Gap evidence No. 1, Eul evidence No. 1, Eul evidence No. 2-1, and Eul evidence No. 2-2, the defendant acquired the building of this case owned by the plaintiff by public auction on March 19, 2015, and completed the registration of ownership transfer on February 17, 2014, D entered into a lease agreement between the plaintiff and the plaintiff on March 17, 2014 with the condition that the lease deposit is KRW 10 million for the first floor restaurant, the rent is KRW 450,000,000 for the first floor, the rent is from March 1, 2014 to March 1, 2016, and thereafter, it was acknowledged that the defendant was in the status of the public room until the defendant acquired the ownership of the second floor.

According to the above facts, it is reasonable to view that the defendant legally occupied the restaurant of the first floor as the owner. Even if the defendant unlawfully occupied the restaurant of the first floor, as long as the plaintiff lost the ownership of the building of this case, the defendant cannot seek delivery of the restaurant of the first floor or return of the keys.

Therefore, the plaintiff's assertion does not seem to have any mother or reason.

3. In conclusion, the plaintiff's claim of this case is dismissed as it is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.

유사 판례

-의정부지방법원고양지원 2016.11.04 2015가합76097

-서울중앙지방법원 2019.05.28 2018가단5279241

-수원지방법원 2016.11.24 2015가단32475

-창원지방법원마산지원 2020.02.06 2019가단100175