(영문) 의정부지방법원고양지원 2019.11.29 2017가단91420

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) 의정부지방법원고양지원 2019.11.29 2017가단91420

토지인도

Text

1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

Reasons

1. Basic facts

A. The Plaintiff owned the instant land.

B. The Defendant is the owner of the Goyang-dong-gu Seoul Metropolitan City D large of 317 square meters and the ground brickd stone sloping roof, which is located near the instant land.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1, 2, and 6, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. A part of the building owned by the Plaintiff’s assertion is located in the part of the instant case (A) owned by the Plaintiff, and part of the fire group owned by the Defendant is located in the part (b) of the instant case owned by the Plaintiff.

The Defendant occupied each of the instant parts of the instant land owned by the Plaintiff without legal authority, thereby hindering the exercise of the Plaintiff’s ownership, gaining profit equivalent to the rent, and incurring loss equivalent to the same amount to the Plaintiff.

The Defendant is obligated to remove each of the buildings in the part (A) of this case and the parts in the part (b) of this case to the Plaintiff, and deliver each of the land in this case to the Plaintiff, and pay KRW 300,000 per month to the return of unjust enrichment.

3. The evidence presented by the Plaintiff as to the cause of the claim alone is insufficient to recognize that the building or the chemical group owned by the Defendant was located in part of the instant land, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it.

(Plaintiff filed an application for survey and appraisal on March 26, 2018, and this Court issued an order of correction ordering “to prepay the estimated appraisal fee within seven days” on April 6, 2018, and the order reached the Plaintiff on April 9, 2018, but the examination of evidence was not conducted because the Plaintiff failed to pay the estimated appraisal fee by the closing date of the pleadings in this case). The Plaintiff’s assertion on the premise that part of the building or the chemical group owned by the Defendant is located on the instant land owned by the Plaintiff is without merit.

4. In conclusion, the plaintiff's claim is dismissed as it is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.

유사 판례

-대전지방법원 2018.06.08 2017나114366

-의정부지방법원 2018.11.07 2017가단105340

-춘천지방법원 강릉지원 2018.02.06 2017가단33403

-대전지방법원논산지원 2017.10.19 2016가단3600

-광주지방법원 2017.11.08 2016가단45958