logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
Text
Reasons
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 의정부지방법원 2016.12.22 2015가합54902
인도 및 부당이득반환
Text

1. The defendant shall leave the building as stated in the attached list No. 2.

2. The plaintiff's remaining claims are dismissed.

3...

Reasons

1. Facts of recognition;

A. The Plaintiff is a project implementer of a housing site development project zone B, C, and D in both weeks (hereinafter “instant project zone”).

B. Around January 22, 2010, the Plaintiff paid KRW 1,405,300,000 as to the land listed in attached Table 1 (hereinafter “instant land”), and KRW 68,698,700 as to the building listed in attached Table 2 (hereinafter “instant building”) around January 21, 2010, pursuant to the compensation plan for the land incorporated into the instant project district and the obstacles, etc.

C. On December 30, 2009, the registration of ownership transfer was completed on December 31, 2009 on the land of this case due to the consultation on the land for public use on December 30, 2009.

피고는 이 사건 건물에 다량의 솜뭉치를 적치해 놓는 등 이 사건 건물을 점유하고 있다.

2. The plaintiff's assertion that the defendant occupies the building of this case cannot remove the building of this case.

The plaintiff seeks the delivery of the building of this case to the defendant as the exclusion of interference based on the ownership of the land of this case.

3. According to the above facts of recognition, the Plaintiff needs to remove the Defendant’s possession of the instant building in order to seek the removal of the instant building and delivery of the site based on the ownership of the instant land. As such, the Plaintiff, the owner of the instant land, may seek a withdrawal from the Defendant as a removal of interference based on its ownership (see Supreme Court Decision 2010Da43801, Aug. 19, 2010). Furthermore, the Plaintiff cannot seek a removal of interference based on its ownership.

Therefore, the defendant is obligated to leave the building of this case to the plaintiff.

(4) Thus, the plaintiff's claim is justified within the scope of the above recognition, and the remaining claims are dismissed as they are without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.

arrow