logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 서울중앙지방법원 2020.01.14 2019나35833
건물명도(인도)
Text

1. Revocation of the first instance judgment.

2. The Defendant indicated in the attached Form 1 among the area of 73,601.3 square meters in Gangnam-gu Seoul, Seoul, as the Plaintiff.

Reasons

1. This part of the basic facts is identical to the corresponding part of the judgment of the court of first instance, and thus, citing it in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

2. Judgment on the primary cause of the claim

A. The Plaintiff, who implements a housing reconstruction rearrangement project under the primary claim, by subrogation of the owners of the land in this case, constructed the building in this case without any title on the ground of the land in this case, and occupied the land in this case without permission, sought the removal of the building in this case and the delivery of the land in this case (A).

B. Determination 1) According to the evidence revealed prior to the Defendant’s unauthorized occupation, Eul’s evidence Nos. 1 through 9, Eul’s evidence Nos. 13, and Eul’s evidence Nos. 13, and 20 (including serial numbers), and the purport of the whole pleadings, although the building of this case was approved as temporary building by the head of Gangnam-gu on October 15, 1984 as a building constructed around 1984, the building of this case was unregistered on the building ledger, but it is not registered, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge the Defendant’s right to possess the portion of this case’s land. Thus, the building of this case is unregistered, and the Defendant occupied the portion of this case’s land of this case without permission by occupying the building of this case, and thus, the Defendant concluded a loan to occupy the portion of this case’s land without permission after consultation with the Korea National Housing Corporation, the Ministry of Patriots and Veterans Affairs (former Ministry of Patriots and Veterans Affairs, and the Seoul Metropolitan Government Office, for which the Defendant occupied the portion of this case’s land without permission.

arrow