logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 전주지방법원정읍지원 2015.10.06 2014가단7047
토지인도 등
Text

1. The defendant shall remove the building stated in the attached list No. 1 to the plaintiff and the land stated in the attached list No. 2.

Reasons

1. Facts of recognition;

A. On June 27, 2014, the Plaintiff completed the registration of ownership transfer with respect to the land listed in [Attachment List No. 2] (hereinafter “instant site”).

B. On April 23, 2009, the Defendant completed registration of preservation of ownership as to the building listed in Paragraph 1 of the Attached List, located on the ground of the instant site (hereinafter “instant building”), and currently occupies the instant site.

[Reasons for Recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1 and 2, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. According to the above facts of recognition as to the cause of the claim, barring special circumstances, such as that the defendant has a legitimate title to possess the site of this case, the defendant is obligated to remove the building of this case owned by the defendant and deliver the site of this case to the plaintiff.

3. Judgment on the defendant's claim

A. The Defendant asserts to the effect that the statutory superficies under customary law exists with respect to the instant building, and thus, there is no obligation to remove the instant building.

In order to establish legal superficies under the customary law, the land and the building owned by the same person should be different owners from each other due to sale, purchase, or any other cause. Considering the overall purport of the pleadings, the entry of evidence Nos. 1 and 2 as to the land and the building of this case in question does not belong to the same person, and thus, legal superficies under the customary law cannot be created. Thus, the defendant's above assertion is rejected.

D At its own expense, the fact that D newly constructed the instant building and completed the registration of initial ownership in the Defendant’s name as seen earlier does not conflict between the parties, and as at the time the Defendant completed the registration of initial ownership as above, D is also recognized by the Plaintiff as the fact that D trusted the title of ownership in the instant site to C at the time of completing the registration of initial ownership.

However, in case where the title of the land is trusted to another person, the truster shall own the land to the third person.

arrow