beta
(영문) 의정부지방법원 2014.10.31 2013나1212

강제집행취소 및 정지결정청구

Text

1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

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

Purport of claim and appeal

The first instance court.

Reasons

1. The reasoning for the court’s explanation of this case is as follows, and this case is cited in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act, since it is the same as the entry of the judgment of the first instance except for any parts to be cited or added below.

2. Parts used or added;

A. From the fourth 6th 6th 6th th th th th th th th th th th th th th th th th th th th th th th th th th th th th th th th th th th th th th th th th th th th th th th th th th th th th th th th th th th

“(In full view of the statements in Gap evidence 2-3, Eul evidence 6-6, the result of the on-site inspection by the court of the trial, and the result of the measurement and appraisal of appraiser G, one of the container stuffs, which ordered removal in the judgment of this case, is installed across the land of this case owned by the defendant and the land of Ilyang-dong, Seoyang-gu, Seoyang-si, Seoul. Therefore, it is recognized that considerable part of the container was affected by the land of this case).”

(b)After the third third third 17th of the first instance judgment, the following 17th of the first instance judgment shall be added, and the fifth 17th below shall be added:

(1) “The instant land is farmland, and the Defendant, in violation of the Farmland Act, acquired the said land and cultivated the said land to the Plaintiff, and in violation of the laws and subordinate statutes, such as refusing to prepare a lease contract between the Plaintiff and the Plaintiff, no right to the said land may be exercised.” See “I do not have any evidence to acknowledge that the Defendant acquired the instant land in violation of the Farmland Act, and even if there were any circumstances violating the laws and subordinate statutes in the process of acquiring the said land by domestic affairs, the Plaintiff’s assertion on this part is without merit.”

3. Conclusion.