logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 대전지방법원 2021.01.21 2019가단112431
토지
Text

1. The Defendants shall return pine trees 1,030, 15 pine trees, farbing trees, which are planted on the land listed in the separate sheet.

Reasons

1. The facts acknowledged are: (a) Defendant B, while engaging in a landscape business, tried at the same trees (hereinafter “the instant trees”) as indicated in the attached list (hereinafter “instant land”); (b) provided the instant trees as collateral by preparing a certificate of the fairness of the repayment contract with the transfer collateral security (hereinafter “non-party Company”) on September 13, 2017, on the ground that the Plaintiff was liable for the debt to D Co., Ltd. (the representative director; hereinafter “non-party Company”); and (c) provided the instant trees as collateral.

The instant land was decided to commence a compulsory auction on February 8, 2018, and the instant trees were excluded from the specifications of the goods sold, and the Plaintiff acquired ownership by selling the instant land on November 1, 2018.

피고 C은 2018. 2. 5. 피고 B으로부터 이 사건 토지를 매수하기로 하는 매매계약을 체결하면서 이 사건 토지 상에 있는 이 사건 수목은 제외하기로 특약하였다가, 2018. 2. 23. 피고 B으로부터 이 사건 수목을 양수하는 계약을 체결한 후 이 사건 토지 상에 ‘ 수목소유 자 C’ 이라는 팻말을 설치하고 ‘ 위 토지 수목은 C 소유입니다

“Placards” was placed at one place.

On the basis of the above process deed against Defendant B, the non-party company seized the movable property in question. Defendant C filed a lawsuit of demurrer against the non-party company by asserting that the trees of this case are its own ownership, and is currently underway.

[Ground for Recognition: Unsatisfy, Evidence A (including each number; hereinafter the same shall apply), the purport of whole pleadings]

2. According to the above facts finding as to the claim, since there is no evidence to prove that the trees of this case meet the requirements set by the Standing Timber Act or the method of master-person under the customary law, it cannot be the object of independent ownership separately from the land of this case.

Therefore, since the trees of this case correspond to the land of this case, the plaintiff who acquired the land of this case in the auction procedure shall file an objection pursuant to the main sentence of Article 256 of the Civil Code.

arrow