(영문) 수원지방법원 안산지원 2018.10.17 2017가단69024

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 안산지원 2018.10.17 2017가단69024

건물명도(인도)

Text

1. The plaintiff's main claim is dismissed.

2. The defendant shall receive KRW 40 million from the plaintiff at the same time.

Reasons

1. Basic facts

A. C completed the registration of ownership transfer concerning the instant building on January 25, 2003.

B. On February 12, 2003, the Defendant: (a) drafted a lease contract to pay the remainder of KRW 36 million to February 18, 2013 (hereinafter “instant lease contract”); (b) obtained a fixed date on February 17, 2003; and (c) completed a move-in report on the same day. The Defendant completed the move-in report on the same day.

C. On November 16, 2007, C created the right to collateral security with the maximum debt amount of KRW 55,200,000 with the Republic of Korea Bank Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “Korea Bank”) as well as the right to collateral security with the maximum debt amount of KRW 60,00,000,000 with the Samsung Petroleum Co., Ltd. on July 10, 2014.

On October 14, 2016, at the request of the Bank, the auction procedure was commenced in Suwon District Court D on the instant building. On November 22, 2017, the Plaintiff completed the registration of ownership transfer on the instant building due to the sale by voluntary auction.

[Reasons for Recognition] Evidence No. 1, Evidence Nos. 1 and 2, and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The assertion and judgment

A. (1) If the plaintiff's assertion entered into a lease agreement with C with the lease deposit amounting to KRW 40 million, in light of the fact that the market price of the building of this case at the time of 2007 was a relatively higher level, the bank did not set up the right to collateral security of KRW 5.2 million with the maximum debt amount, and there was no ground for the defendant to pay the lease deposit to C, etc., the lease agreement of this case is null and void due to false conspiracy, or the defendant did not pay the lease deposit to C. Thus, the defendant is obligated to deliver the building of this case to the plaintiff seeking delivery based on the right to claim for the exclusion of interference based on ownership.

and even if so.

유사 판례

-의정부지방법원고양지원 2019.09.18 2018가단93232

-광주지방법원 2015.02.05 2014가합52782

-광주지방법원목포지원 2014.01.28 2013가합10180

-대구고등법원 2019.10.18 2019나20079

-수원지방법원 안산지원 2018.09.19 2018가단51297