(영문) 청주지방법원 2014.11.12 2013가단154634

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) 청주지방법원 2014.11.12 2013가단154634

건물명도

Text

1. The defendant shall be the plaintiff.

(a) deliver the buildings listed in the separate sheet;

(b) KRW 3,90,000 and this shall be August 2013.

Reasons

1. On November 28, 2012, the Plaintiff acquired the ownership of the building listed in the separate sheet (hereinafter “instant building”) and the Defendant has occupied the instant building from that time to that time.

From November 28, 2012 to April 12, 2013, the reasonable monthly rent of the instant building is KRW 570,000.

【In light of the fact that there is no dispute, Gap 2 and 5 evidence, and the purport of the entire pleadings, the defendant is obligated to deliver the building of this case to the plaintiff, and to return to the plaintiff the unjust enrichment equivalent to the rent of KRW 3,90,000 won ( = 570,00 won x 7 months) calculated at the rate of 20% per annum from August 31, 2013 to the day of complete payment from August 28, 2013 to the day of delivery of the copy of the complaint of this case, and the unjust enrichment of KRW 5,70,000 per annum calculated at the rate of KRW 570,00 per month from June 28, 2013 to the day of delivery of the building of this case.

2. Judgment on the defendant's assertion

A. As to this, the defendant asserted that C (D company) has the right to possess the building of this case since it was part of the exercise of the lien on the building of this case since it was not paid the subcontract price by C, even though it was established by subcontracting as a subcontract for household installation works, such as singing, singing, and singinginginging, among the design waterproof and swimming works.

B. However, in order for the Defendant to exercise the right of retention on the instant building, there must be a relation between the preserved claim and the Defendant’s relation. There is no evidence to prove that the households, such as singing, singing, singinging, and wing, installed in the instant building, have reached the degree that it would be difficult to separate from the instant building (it can be easily separated according to the images of the evidence No. 6-1, No. 2, 3, and No. 7-1 through No. 9). The cost of household installation works claimed by the Defendant for the instant building was generated in relation to the instant building.

참조조문

-소송촉진 등에 관한 특례법

유사 판례

-서울남부지방법원 2017.06.16 2016나5295

-의정부지방법원 2015.12.18 2015나6976

-서울남부지방법원 2016.07.28 2015가단32633

-춘천지방법원강릉지원 2015.12.01 2015나714

-춘천지방법원영월지원 2015.05.13 2015가단583