beta
(영문) 울산지방법원 2019.05.10 2018가단66793

건물등철거

Text

1. The Defendants are to the Plaintiff’s Intervenor, within the limit of 1/6 shares, each of the buildings listed in the [Attachment 2] list.

Reasons

1. Basic facts

A. The relationship between the parties 1) the deceased G (Death in 2008) and the deceased H (Death in February 21, 2001) have six children, both South and North J and the Defendants, respectively. (ii) the heir J and the Defendants’ share of inheritance following the death of G are one-six each.

3) The Plaintiff is the wife of I. B. (1) The instant building was newly constructed and approved for use in around 1959 by G. However, at the time of the same year, I was registered as the owner of the instant general building ledger, and on the basis of the said ledger, the Plaintiff completed registration of initial ownership on September 12, 2014.

2) The Plaintiff owned shares of 585.4/592 among the instant land in which the instant building is located, and completed the registration of ownership transfer to the Intervenor on December 4, 2018, which was pending in the instant lawsuit. (c) The Plaintiff, such as the contents of the previous judgment, filed a lawsuit against J husband and wife who had resided in the instant building on the premise that he/she is the owner of the instant building on the premise that he/she is the owner of the said building. The Plaintiff’s claim was dismissed on the ground that “The foregoing building was originally acquired, and the ownership and preservation registration of the building in the Plaintiff’s name was invalidated on the ground that it is the owner of the said building, but on the other hand, the Plaintiff is the owner of the instant land, who is the owner of the instant land, and thus, the Plaintiff is the owner of the said building, and thus, he/she is obligated to remove the said building within the limit of 1/6 shares among the instant building (this Court Decision 2017Na2370).

2. Determination:

A. On the premise that the Plaintiff is the owner of the instant land, the Plaintiff sought removal of the instant building and delivery of the said land to the Defendants.

However, the plaintiff recognized the loss of ownership of the above land during the lawsuit of this case.