(영문) 춘천지방법원속초지원 2019.02.15 2018가단1119

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) 춘천지방법원속초지원 2019.02.15 2018가단1119

제3자이의

Text

1. The instant lawsuit shall be dismissed.

2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by each person;

Reasons

1. Basic facts

A. On May 12, 1992, the Class E (hereinafter “the non-permanent clan”) completed the registration of ownership transfer with respect to the land of this case (hereinafter “the instant land”).

B. On August 23, 2016, the non-party clan filed a lawsuit against the non-party B for the removal of a building, etc. by filing a lawsuit against the non-party B with the Chuncheon District Court Branch of 2015Kadan2913, the non-party clan "B removed the above part of the instant land by adding up the following points in sequence: (a) the house of cement block structure and one-story, the house of the same drawing, the house of 13, 14, 15, 12 and 13 on the ground of the non-party clan 17, 18, 20, 20, 3, 4, 5, 6, 21, 16, and 17, each of which indicated in the attached drawings among the instant land to the non-party clan B; and (b) the decision was made to remove the above part of the cement block and the above part of the building "a cement block" in sequence with the non-party clan 23 square meters above.

(hereinafter referred to as the above judgment) The judgment of this case (hereinafter referred to as the "judgment").

The Defendant purchased the instant land from Nonparty on September 27, 2017 and completed the registration of ownership transfer on November 1, 2017.

On July 11, 2018, the Defendant received an execution clause to succeed to the instant judgment and filed an application with B for alternative enforcement concerning the removal of the instant building (hereinafter “instant alternative enforcement”) with the Chuncheon District Court’s Seocho BranchF.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 9, 10 evidence, Eul evidence 1 to 3, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The owner of the instant building asserted by the Plaintiff is not B but the Plaintiff.

Therefore, a compulsory execution against the building of this case by the Defendant based on the executory exemplification of the judgment of this case against B should be denied.

3. Ex officio determination as to the legitimacy of the suit is made.

유사 판례

-춘천지방법원속초지원 2019.04.12 2018가단202448

-창원지방법원 2017.01.12 2015가단11949

-대전지방법원홍성지원 2015.02.03 2014가단6732

-창원지방법원진주지원 2019.09.19 2018가단2147

-서울서부지방법원 2020.02.19 2019가단251523