(영문) 인천지방법원부천지원 2014.05.29 2013가합6840

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) 인천지방법원부천지원 2014.05.29 2013가합6840

건물등철거

Text

1. The plaintiff's claims against the defendants are all dismissed.

2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

Reasons

1. Basic facts

A. On July 24, 2013, the Plaintiff completed the registration of ownership transfer on the grounds of sale on June 21, 2013 with respect to F forest land of 661 square meters (hereinafter “instant one land”) and H forest of 3,905 square meters (hereinafter “H land of 300 square meters and G forest of 3,605 square meters on January 3, 2014”); hereinafter “H and G land,” the Plaintiff completed the registration of ownership transfer on the grounds of sale on June 21, 2013.

B. From July 9, 1988, Defendant B owned two buildings under paragraph (1) located on the land of this case (the building of this case, hereinafter “the building of this case”). Defendant C, the wife of Defendant B, from July 18, 1991, owned two buildings not registered under paragraph (2) of this Article (the building of this case, hereinafter “the building of this case”). Defendant C, the wife of Defendant B, from July 18, 1991, owned two buildings not registered under paragraph (2) of this Article (the building of this case, hereinafter “the building of this case”).

C. At present, Defendant E operates a restaurant in the name of “I” in the above building with the consent of Defendant B to use the building of this case, and Defendant D occupies and uses the two building of this case with the consent of Defendant C.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, entry of Gap evidence 1 to 3 (including paper numbers; hereinafter the same shall apply) and the purport of whole pleadings

2. Judgment on the plaintiff's assertion

A. The summary of the Plaintiff’s claim for removal, delivery, and removal of the instant building 1 and its site was asserted by J, who was the former owner of the instant land, and Defendant B acquired statutory superficies against the instant building located on the said land in a voluntary auction procedure. At the time, J agreed with the said Defendant that the said Defendant did not pay the statutory superficies, but the said Defendant did not pay the statutory superficies, and the said Defendant agreed to remove the said building from J or the Plaintiff to remove the said building.

Nevertheless, the above defendant does not remove the above building and allow the defendant E to use it. The defendant B is the same.

유사 판례

-수원지방법원평택지원 2016.07.05 2016가단41826

-서울고등법원 2015.03.19 2014나2018771

-수원지방법원여주지원 2017.04.06 2016가단761

-서울행정법원 2013.11.28 2012구단23566

-청주지방법원 2020.11.05 2018구합3368