시설물설치의무부존재확인의 소
1. The defendant's appeal is dismissed.
2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Defendant.
Between the Plaintiff and the Defendant of the claim.
1. The reasoning of the judgment of this court citing the judgment of the court of first instance is as stated in the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance, in addition to the following, the defendant's determination of a new assertion by this court as the reason for appeal in Paragraph 2, and thus, it is also cited including summary in accordance with the main sentence of Article 4
2. Additional determination as to the defendant's new argument
A. In order to transfer the Defendant’s assertion of ownership of movable property, there should be a delivery of movable property in addition to the agreement between the parties on real rights. Even if there was an agreement between the Plaintiff and the Defendant on the ownership transfer of the instant electronic sign board pursuant to the donation clause, the Plaintiff did not acquire the ownership of the instant electronic sign board since it was not possessed by being handed over the instant electronic sign board before the removal of the instant electronic sign board, but only acquired the right to claim the transfer of the instant electronic sign board in accordance with the above agreement on real rights.
However, the Plaintiff’s right to request the issuance of electronic display boards of this case expired on October 22, 2004 or on October 20, 2015, which is the date of the first contract where the Plaintiff’s right to request the issuance of the electronic display boards of this case occurred, by prescription on October 22, 2014 or on October 20, 2015, when ten years have elapsed from January 20, 2005, where the electronic display board of this case was installed.
Therefore, the Plaintiff, who did not acquire the ownership of the electric sign board of this case, is not entitled to remove the electric sign board of this case.
B. According to the facts acknowledged in the judgment of the court of first instance cited prior to the determination and the present evidence, the Plaintiff and the Defendant, after the formation of the instant agreement, acknowledged that the Plaintiff used the instant electronic sign board from March 2007 to December 1, 2010, instead of using the instant electronic sign board. As above, the fact that the Defendant did not use the instant electronic sign board until the removal of the instant electronic sign board on May 2017 by the Plaintiff from around December 1, 2017.