(영문) 대전지방법원공주지원 2012.07.12 2011가단4048

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) 대전지방법원공주지원 2012.07.12 2011가단4048

건물철거 등

Text

1. In the order of the Plaintiff, the Defendant indicated in the attached Form 1 to 12, 14, and 1 on the land of 592 square meters in Seoul, Sinju-si.

Reasons

1. Facts of recognition;

A. Cand 592 square meters (hereinafter “instant land”) are owned by the Plaintiff, who completed the registration of ownership transfer with the head of Daejeon District Court No. 18961, Aug. 5, 1981, which was received on August 5, 1981.

B. Among the instant land, there are 90 square meters of red brick house owned by the Defendant on the ship that connects each point of 1 through 12, 14, and 1 of the annexed drawings among the instant land, and the red brick house 90 square meters (one sapopic sapap assessment business place with a registration injury, 1 to 43 square meters, hereinafter “the instant building”). D completed registration of preservation of ownership on February 21, 1974 as the receipt of public housing branch of the Daejeon District Court (1650 on February 21, 1974) and the registration of transfer was completed on November 23, 2010 as the receipt of public housing branch of the Daejeon District Court (31378 on November 23, 2010).

2. According to the allegations and the above facts of recognition, the defendant is obligated to remove the building of this case, unless there are special circumstances to the plaintiff.

In regard to this, the defendant asserted that the plaintiff was the owner of the entire land and the building in this case, and therefore, that the plaintiff acquired the legal superficies under customary law, and therefore, according to the evidence Nos. 3, it can be recognized that there was cement cement, house and accessory company owned by the plaintiff on the ground of the land in this case. However, according to the evidence No. 3, the above house and accessory company were all removed and the report of destruction was completed on Nov. 30, 1998 and Nov. 5, 201, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge the fact that the building in this case was owned by the plaintiff. Thus, the defendant's above assertion is not accepted.

3. If so, the plaintiff's claim of this case is justified and it is so decided as per Disposition with the assent of all participating Justices.

유사 판례

-대전지방법원공주지원 2012.07.12 2011가단4048

-대전지방법원 2012.12.26. 선고 2012나12236 판결

-대전지방법원 2015.01.23 2014나9968

-대전지방법원공주지원 2020.09.10 2019가단21087

-대전지방법원공주지원 2017.11.09 2017가단1492