(영문) 청주지방법원충주지원 2016.10.20 2016가단20612

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) 청주지방법원충주지원 2016.10.20 2016가단20612

건물명도

Text

1. The plaintiff's main claim is dismissed.

2. The Defendant indicated the attached Form 1 on the Plaintiff, among the land size of 2,380 square meters prior to C in Chungcheongnam-si.

Reasons

1. Summary of the plaintiff's assertion

A. On February 20, 2002, the Plaintiff purchased 2,380 square meters (hereinafter “instant land”) from Nonparty D, who is a Si Residents, in order to purchase the land of this case, which is an unauthorized building, as shown in the annexed drawing Nos. 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, and 1 among the land of this case, which is an unauthorized building, the Plaintiff purchased the land of this case, with the same land of wood-building, soil-building, non-building, non-building walls, and double iron bars (part of ments and splate roof) housing (hereinafter “instant housing”).

B. Since 1998, the Defendant began to reside without title in the instant housing from around 1998, and the Plaintiff demanded to leave after purchasing the instant housing, but did not comply therewith. Thus, the Defendant is obligated to deliver the instant housing to the Plaintiff, the owner of the instant housing.

C. Although the Plaintiff’s ownership on the instant housing is not recognized, the Plaintiff, as the owner of the instant land, seeks removal of the instant building and delivery of 70 square meters of the instant housing site among the instant land, to the Defendant who possessed the instant land without authority by owning the instant building as the owner of the instant land.

2. Determination

A. Since there is no evidence to acknowledge that the Plaintiff purchased the instant house and is the owner of the instant house, the Plaintiff’s primary claim is without merit.

B. In full view of the entries in Gap evidence No. 1 and the purport of the entire pleadings as to the conjunctive claim, the plaintiff can recognize that he is the owner of the land of this case who completed the registration of ownership transfer as to the land of this case on February 20, 202. The fact that the defendant owned the building of this case and occupied the site of the building of this case among the land of this case is not a dispute between the parties (the plaintiff's conjunctive claim is based on the plaintiff's conjunctive claim) and unless there are special circumstances, the defendant removed the building of this case to the plaintiff who is the owner of the land of this case. The

유사 판례

-대전지방법원서산지원 2017.10.31 2017가단51254

-대전지방법원논산지원 2017.12.21 2017가단1786

-청주지방법원충주지원 2016.11.30 2016가단21813

-대전지방법원논산지원 2019.01.31 2018가단21411

-청주지방법원제천지원 2015.10.22 2014가단3128