(영문) 대구지방법원 2014.11.27 2014나10500

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) 대구지방법원 2014.11.27 2014나10500

토지인도 등

Text

1. The defendant succeeding intervenor's appeal is dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the defendant succeeding intervenor.

purport.

Reasons

1. The judgment on the cause of the claim was made on May 15, 2010 and completed the registration of ownership transfer on June 3, 2010 after purchasing D 936 square meters (hereinafter “instant land”). The part of item (a) of the instant land connected with each of the items in sequence 1, 2, 3, 4, and 1, which is constructed on the ground of the annexed drawings (hereinafter “instant warehouse”). The instant warehouse is registered as the owner from September 24, 1996 on the building register in the absence of registration and on November 26, 2013, the registration of ownership transfer in the name of the Defendant (Withdrawal), and the fact that the ownership transfer registration in the name of the succeeding intervenor was completed on the same day is not disputed between the parties concerned, or if the Plaintiff did not have any obligation to remove the aforementioned part of items (a) above, the Intervenor does not have any special reason to recognize the purport of item (a) of the entire pleadings.

2. Judgment on the argument of the defendant succeeding intervenor

A. First, the defendant succeeding intervenor constructed the warehouse of this case under the name of the defendant (ex officio) with the permission of E, the previous owner of the land of this case. Thus, the defendant succeeding intervenor asserted that he had the right to use the part of the above item (a) above, and according to the statement of No. 2-1, Eul, the owner of the land of this case at the time of constructing the warehouse of this case, is recognized as having permitted the use of the part of the above item (a) above, but such circumstance cannot be a possessor of the right to possess the land of this case as at the time of the construction of the warehouse of this case. Thus, the above argument is without merit.

B. Next, the defendant succeeding intervenor asserts that since the plaintiff currently occupies the warehouse of this case, the defendant succeeding intervenor did not have a duty to remove the warehouse of this case.

The plaintiff is currently in possession of the warehouse of this case.

유사 판례

-서울서부지방법원 2015.05.21 2014나721

-대구지방법원상주지원 2014.06.11 2013가단4011

-부산지방법원 동부지원 2021.02.04 2019가단205321

-부산고등법원 2016.01.14 2013나7332

-전주지방법원정읍지원 2020.04.02 2019가단10888 (1)