beta
(영문) 대구지방법원안동지원 2017.08.30 2016가단4891

지상권말소

Text

1. The defendant on December 21, 1976, as to each real estate listed in the separate sheet to the plaintiff, the Daegu District Court in the salary registry office.

Reasons

1. Comprehensively taking account of the overall purport of the arguments in Gap evidence Nos. 1 and 2 as to the cause of the claim, the registration of creation of superficies (hereinafter "registration of creation of superficies of this case") was completed with respect to each real estate listed in the separate sheet (hereinafter "each real estate of this case") in the defendant Daegu District Court, Daegu District Court No. 3923, Dec. 21, 1976, which was received on December 21, 1976, which was 30 years from December 21, 1976, and the plaintiff completed the registration of creation of superficies of this case on August 10, 2004.

According to the above facts, since the superficies of this case ceased to exist upon the expiration of the duration on December 21, 2006, the defendant is obligated to implement the registration procedure for cancellation of the superficies of this case to the plaintiff, who is the owner of each real estate of this case, unless there are special circumstances.

2. The defendant's assertion that the defendant should maintain superficies until the plaintiff and the defendant agreed on the property right to standing timber on the ground of this case, and if the plaintiff damaged standing timber which is the defendant's property, the plaintiff shall not be exempt from civil or criminal liability.

The defendant's above assertion is selected by exercising the right to demand the purchase of the above ground water, and the right to demand the purchase of the health-based ground can only serve as a ground for the landowner to remove the ground and block his request for the transfer of land, and it cannot be a ground for setting up against the claim for cancellation of the registration of creation of superficies. Therefore, the defendant's above assertion is without

3. In conclusion, the plaintiff's claim of this case is reasonable, and it is so decided as per Disposition.