logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 서울고등법원(춘천) 2016.01.27 2015나422
유치권확인 등
Text

The plaintiff's incidental appeal shall be dismissed.

The defendants' appeal is dismissed.

The appeal costs are assessed against the Defendants.

Reasons

Whether an incidental appeal is lawful or not, the Plaintiff alleged that the first instance court did not attach a declaration of provisional execution on the part in which the Plaintiff’s claim was accepted, and filed an incidental appeal against it. However, the declaration of provisional execution does not have the right to file an application with the party as a matter of judgment ex officio by the court (see Supreme Court Decision 98Da42141, Nov. 10, 1998).

Plaintiff’s incidental appeal is unlawful.

(However, as seen below, our court's explanation of this case is the same as the part of the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance, and thus, it is accepted in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

[Defendant's assertion that the Plaintiff did not occupy the real estate of this case from the beginning and denied the fact of deprivation of possession by the Plaintiff. However, according to the evidence No. 2, the Defendants' assertion that the Defendants did not occupy the real estate of this case from the beginning, and that the judgment (2013Kadan417, Nov. 29, 2013) became final and conclusive by convictioning the Plaintiff's possession of the real estate of this case and thereby, it can be recognized that the Plaintiff occupied the real estate of this case before the deprivation of possession, and otherwise, it is insufficient to reverse the recognition of the facts of the above criminal judgment with the proof of the Defendants. The Plaintiff's incidental appeal is dismissed, without merit. The Defendants' appeal by the Defendants is dismissed, and the losing parties bear the litigation costs of each trial. The Defendants' claim for delivery of real estate of this case is obvious that it is a claim for property right, and there is no reason to deem otherwise, and therefore, the Defendants' assertion that provisional execution is contrary to the declaration of provisional execution.

arrow