beta
(영문) 대구지방법원 2020.03.25 2019나7165

토지인도 등

Text

1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

2. The costs of the lawsuit after the appeal shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

purport, purport, and.

Reasons

1. Facts of recognition;

A. The Plaintiff, a total of 176 households, is jointly owned by the sectional owners of H, among the F apartment on the five above ground (hereinafter “instant apartment”) of the five lots of land, the apartment site is owned by the Plaintiff according to the shares of the site ownership.

B. On July 1996, G Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “G”) had obtained approval for use from D Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “D”), the executor company of the instant apartment, for free use, installed the instant refining facilities on the ground of the instant apartment site. The Defendant acquired G around August 200 and supplied urban gas to the instant apartment from around that time.

C. The static pressure equipment of this case is an essential facility for converting urban gas from high pressure into low pressure to domestic use, and for supplying urban gas to the apartment complex of this case and its neighboring areas.

The Plaintiff filed the instant lawsuit seeking the removal of the pressure-driven facilities of the instant case and the transfer of the site, and did not undergo the resolution of the apartment management body of the instant case.

[Ground of Recognition: Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1, Gap evidence 3, Eul evidence 1, Eul evidence 2-1, Eul evidence 2-2, results of surveying and appraisal entrusted to the original court for the cadastral work, purport of the whole pleadings]

2. The plaintiff's assertion and judgment

A. The Plaintiff asserted against the Defendant that the Plaintiff sought removal of the instant facilities and delivery of the instant site by demanding the Defendant to preserve the jointly-owned property (request for removal of disturbance based on ownership).

① Defendant and G did not obtain consent from co-owners of the instant site, such as the Plaintiff, and installed the instant facilities on the instant site.

② Even if D consented to G with respect to the establishment of the instant refining equipment, and consented to the use of the instant site, and thus, D and G entered into a loan agreement for use with no fixed period of time for the instant site, the validity of such agreement is the Plaintiff and other parties of the instant site.