logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 전주지방법원 2015.11.03 2014가단44057
건물철거 등
Text

1. The defendant

A. Removal of the attached list of the building on the ground of 223.8 square meters on the Jeonjin-gu Seoul Metropolitan City, Jeondong-gu, and the above.

Reasons

1. Facts of recognition;

A. B purchased on March 2, 1992, 1/2 of the land No. 1 listed in the separate sheet (hereinafter “instant land”) together with C, and completed the registration of transfer of each share on the 14th of the same month. On September 25, 1995, B purchased its share from C and completed the registration of transfer of share on October 9 of the same year.

B. B, around March 27, 2002, constructed a new building No. 2 on the instant land (hereinafter “instant building”), but without completing preservation registration in its name, sold the instant land and building to the Defendant on March 27, 2002.

C. On February 3, 2004, the Defendant completed the registration of the establishment of a mortgage on the instant land with the maximum debt amount of KRW 195,00,000,000, the debtor, the debtor, the debtor, the right to collateral security, and the right to collateral security, and completed the registration of the ownership transfer in the name of the Plaintiff on October 7, 2014 upon the bid of the instant land, due to the execution of the said right to collateral security.

【Ground of recognition】 The fact that there has been no dispute, Gap evidence 1, Eul evidence 1-1 and 2, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination

A. According to the facts acknowledged as above, the defendant is obligated to remove the building of this case and deliver the land of this case to the plaintiff seeking the removal of the building of this case and the delivery of the land as the co-owners of the above D site, unless there are other special circumstances as the disposal authority of the building of this case.

On the instant land at the time of establishing a right to collateral security, the Defendant asserted that there was a statutory superficies to own the instant store, since the Plaintiff was awarded a successful bid for only the instant land and the building owner were different.

After the Defendant purchased the instant land from B and the unregistered building, the instant land and the unregistered building, the instant land.

arrow