(영문) 제주지방법원 2019.01.29 2018가단526

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) 제주지방법원 2019.01.29 2018가단526

토지인도 등

Text

1. The defendant shall pay to the plaintiff KRW 417,00, and 5% per annum from January 31, 2018 to January 29, 2019.

Reasons

1. Basic facts

A. On April 30, 199, the Plaintiff purchased a building with B, B, 330.6 square meters in Jeju-si, and three floors on its ground (hereinafter “the instant cartel”), and completed the registration of ownership transfer on May 7, 199.

B. On September 2003, C, who leased and operated the instant Moel from the Plaintiff, applied for use of late night electric power to the Defendant (at that time, the Plaintiff affixed the written application for use as the owner of the instant Moel). At that time, the Defendant installed a transformer and high voltage line around the instant Mour.

C. Of the land used as a parking lot, etc. in the instant telecom (hereinafter “instant land”), one end part of the space adjoining the road among the sites used as a parking lot, etc. in the instant telecom (hereinafter “instant land”), a utility pole with a diameter of at least 35 cm and length of at least 10 cm (hereinafter “the instant utility pole”) was installed by the Defendant. However, the Defendant transferred the instant utility pole to the outer part of the instant land on or around December 2018 after the instant lawsuit was filed.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1, 2, 4, 5 (including evidence of provisional number; hereinafter the same shall apply), Eul evidence Nos. 1 to 9, and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination as to the cause of action

A. The Plaintiff asserts that “the Defendant installed the instant utility pole without permission within the instant land from January 22, 2008 to November 21, 2018.” According to the facts, evidence and the purport of the entire pleadings, the Plaintiff asserted that the instant utility pole had been installed within the instant land during the said period (related to this, the Plaintiff asserted that “the telecommunication pole existed before purchasing the instant telecom,” and the Defendant, around September 2003, installed the new utility pole after removing the existing utility pole upon the Plaintiff’s request for the use of late electric power.”

‘The position' is, however, the above findings of fact.

유사 판례

-창원지방법원 2016.05.24 2015가단77277

-부산지방법원 2016.11.15 2015가단82449

-울산지방법원 2017.5.11.선고 2016가합21397 판결

-서울남부지방법원 2018.03.14 2016가단48048

-의정부지방법원 2019.11.21 2019나1023