logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 청주지방법원영동지원 2017.05.12 2016가단744
건물인도 등
Text

1. The defendant shall deliver to the plaintiff the building indicated in the attached list.

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

3...

Reasons

In light of the fact that the plaintiff's expression of intent in the above content certification is not a "cancellation" that retroactively terminates the validity of the sales contract of this case, but it is reasonable to view it as a "cancellation" that will lose its validity in the future, and the defendant does not dispute this.

section 1.

E. On September 15, 2015, the auditor of the Plaintiff and C entered into the instant business agreement with the Plaintiff on September 15, 2015 (hereinafter “instant business agreement”). Article 1(a) of the Business Agreement (the terms of the agreement) provides that “A” shall carry out the following business operations with “B” for the G land and obstacles (unregistered construction, hereinafter “real estate”) owned by “A” (O) in the Chungcheongbuk-dong, Chungcheongnam-dong, Chungcheongnam-do, and, at the N’s request, enter into a sales agreement with “B” (O) on September 1, 200: (a) consultation on the sales amount of the said real estate (land and obstacles) * (240 million won or more per day, “A” shall enter into a sales agreement with the designated entity “B” on behalf of the Plaintiff; (b) all necessary procedures for the sale of the said real estate * agreement on lien and registration transfer 200,000,000 won after the conclusion of the instant business agreement;

At the time of the defendant's attempt to purchase the land and buildings of this case, but the above purchase agreement was no longer made because it failed to raise funds thereafter.

3 On November 14, 2015, the Plaintiff terminated the instant work agreement that was duly concluded with theO.

F. The Defendant occupied the instant building from August 24, 2015 to the entrance of the instant building from August 24, 2015, is under the right of retention and is prohibited from entering the said building.

"after attaching a notice to the purport, the building of this case has been occupied until now.

The dispute on the basis of recognition.

arrow