(영문) 제주지방법원 2019.10.30 2018나14380

beta

본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.

Text

Reasons

텍스트 조절

글꼴

크기(pt)

굵기

줄 간격

자간(%)

(영문) 제주지방법원 2019.10.30 2018나14380

건물명도 등

Text

1. The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Defendant.

Purport of claim and appeal

1..

Reasons

1. The reasoning of the court of first instance’s explanation concerning this case is as follows: (a) the defendant added the judgment of the court of first instance as to the assertion emphasized or added by the court of first instance; and (b) the defendant’s assertion is not sufficient to recognize the defendant’s assertion as evidence additionally submitted in the court of first instance, except for the rejection of each description of evidence Nos. 2 and 3 (including paper numbers). Therefore, this is cited in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

2. Parts to be determined additionally

A. The defendant asserts that the owner of the building of this case is the defendant, that the defendant donated the building of this case to himself/herself who had resided together in a de facto marital relationship with the net G, which is a newly built building of this case, and that the defendant also owned and managed the building of this case as his/her own ownership.

In light of the evidence evidence No. 2, the Defendant is found to have given a prior notice to remove the instant building, which was an unauthorized building, around October 2017, and it appears that the Defendant occupied the instant building while residing in the building. As such, it is insufficient to acknowledge that the net G donated the instant building to the Defendant solely based on the aforementioned facts and the evidence submitted by the Defendant, and there is no other evidence to prove otherwise.

Therefore, this part of the defendant's argument is without merit.

B. On January 16, 2018, the Defendant asserts that the Plaintiff’s assertion that the waiver of superficies and the transfer contract between the Plaintiff and C are null and void, that the Plaintiff’s motive for finding the instant building and its superficies from the instant building (hereinafter “instant agreement”) is to be deemed null and void as it constitutes an anti-social juristic act, or constitutes a false declaration of agreement between the Plaintiff and C, and thus becomes null and void.

However, the evidence presented by the Defendant alone is presented.

참조조문

-민사소송법 제420조

유사 판례

-서울서부지방법원 2018.12.14 2018나1906

-창원지방법원 2017.09.20 2017나1893

-의정부지방법원 2015.02.11 2014가단37231

-전주지방법원 정읍지원 2017.02.02 2016가단10566

-서울중앙지방법원 2018.03.29 2017나21236