(영문) 광주지방법원 장흥지원 2018.05.16 2017가단3407

beta

본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.

Text

Reasons

텍스트 조절

글꼴

크기(pt)

굵기

줄 간격

자간(%)

(영문) 광주지방법원 장흥지원 2018.05.16 2017가단3407

토지인도

Text

1. The Defendant is a clerical error in the “C” of the written application for amendment of the purport of the claim to the Plaintiff, Gangnam-gun, Gangnam-gun, Seoul.

65. Forest:

Reasons

1. Determination on the cause of the claim

(a) The following facts may be acknowledged, either in dispute between the parties, or in accordance with Gap evidence 1, Gap evidence 9-1 to 25, or in accordance with the purport of the whole pleadings, as a result of the request for appraisal by this Court:

1) The Plaintiff is the owner of C forest land 65,097 square meters in Gangnam-gun, Jeonjin-gun. 2) The Defendant occupies the land in which the container is installed and owned in the part of the attached drawings on the ship (B) and (5) part of the said forest, in the part of (1) and (2) in the ship, in the part of (1) and (2) in the ship, in the part of (3) and (4) in the ship, in the part of (7) in the ship, and in the part of (c) in the ship.

B. Therefore, the defendant has a duty to remove or collect from the plaintiff the articles or buildings (the part on board (a), (b), (a) (b), (b), (b), (c), (d), (v), (vi), (vii), and (vii) indicated in the attached Form 1) as stated in the attached Form 1, and to deliver the article in possession (the part on board (a), (b), (c), (a) (a), (b), (a) (i), (c), (d), (v), (vii), (vii), (vii) as stated in the attached Form 1) to the plaintiff, except in extenuating circumstances.

C. As to this, the defendant obtained the consent on possession from the relocating owner.

Although it is alleged that there exists a lien on the ground that the expenses for transplantation of remains buried in the instant forest or forest, road usage fees established by the Defendant, tree transplantation expenses, and the purchase expenses of a manager installed in the instant forest or forest, etc. should be paid from the Plaintiff, the Defendant’s assertion is without merit, as there is no evidence to acknowledge the aforementioned assertion

2. According to the conclusion, the plaintiff's claim of this case is accepted for reasons.

유사 판례

-부산지방법원서부지원 2020.04.09 2019가단110269

-광주지방법원 2019.01.30 2018가단225

-청주지방법원 2019.01.15 2018가단26031

-대구지방법원 2016.02.18 2014나12353

-광주지방법원 해남지원 2018.09.04 2016가단2212