logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
arrow
(영문) 춘천지방법원 강릉지원 2018.02.06 2017가단45
건물인도 등
Text

1. The defendant has each point of the attached Form No. 11, 13, 14, 7, 8, 15, 10, and 11, among the land area of 192 square meters in the case of three-dimensionals to the plaintiff.

Reasons

1. Basic facts

A. On April 16, 1999, the Plaintiff purchased CJ 192 square meters (hereinafter “the instant land”) and the building without permission on its ground and completed the registration of ownership transfer for the instant land on April 23, 199.

B. As of the date of the closing of argument in this case, the Defendant is located on the part (A) in the ship, which connects each point of 11,13, 14, 7, 8, 15, 10, 11 among the land in this case, with the appraisal of the land in this case, and the same appraisal of 83 square meters and the same appraisal of 16, 17, 3, 4, 18, 23, and 16 square meters, in sequence, connected each point of 44 square meters.

(hereinafter "the building of this case"). 【The ground for recognition】 Each entry of Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 8, and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination

A. According to the above facts of determination as to the cause of the claim, the defendant is obligated to deliver the building of this case to the plaintiff.

B. The Defendant’s assertion and judgment 1) The Defendant asserted that the right of retention is recognized with regard to the instant building as the right to claim reimbursement of necessary expenses and beneficial expenses, on the ground that the Defendant occupies the instant building in a peaceful and consistent manner by enlarginging or rebuilding the instant building, and that the right of retention may not be claimed in a case where the possession of the instant building is a tort due to a tort.

(2) Article 320(1) of the Civil Act provides that “The possessor of an article shall be presumed to have occupied the article in good faith, peace, and public performance with the intention of possession, and the possessor’s exercise of the right against the article is presumed to legally hold the right (see Articles 197(1) and 200 of the Civil Act).” Therefore, in order to reject the claim of a lien based on the right to claim reimbursement of beneficial costs for the article in possession, the possessor shall have to assert and prove the other party’s assertion on the grounds that the possession was commenced due to the tort, or that the possessor

Supreme Court on December 13, 2011

arrow