logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 서울중앙지방법원 2020.09.08 2019가단5127545
건물등철거
Text

Defendant-Counterclaim Plaintiff (Counterclaim Plaintiff) shall be dismissed.

Defendant C Co., Ltd and Defendant (Counterclaim Plaintiff) are the Plaintiff (Counterclaim Defendant).

Reasons

A principal lawsuit and a counterclaim shall be deemed simultaneously.

1. Facts of recognition;

A. The Re-building Management Committee for Plaintiff A (hereinafter “Plaintiff Committee”) is a non-corporate body comprised of the sectional owners of the existing A shop for the purpose of rebuilding A shop located in the Jung-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government E large 365 square meters (hereinafter “instant land”). Plaintiff B owns the representative of the Plaintiff Committee and 180.59 percent of the instant land.

B. Defendant D is the representative director of Defendant C Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “Defendant Co., Ltd.”) and owns a F large of 744 square meters adjacent to the instant land (hereinafter “instant adjacent land”).

C. The Defendants constructed and used a steel container provisional building on the neighboring land of this case (hereinafter “instant provisional building”). Part of the instant land was installed by breaking up the instant land, and owned 5 square meters in part (B) in a ship connected each point of the attached Table 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, and 1 (hereinafter “the instant provisional building”).

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, entry of Gap evidence 1 through 5 (including each number if there is a serial number; hereinafter the same shall apply) and the result of the appraisal commission to the Vice Governor of Seoul Central Land Information Corporation in this Court, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Judgment on the plaintiffs' main claim

A. As to the claim of the Plaintiff’s principal lawsuit, the Plaintiff Committee was delegated by the Plaintiff Committee to exercise the Defendants’ right to claim the removal of disturbance based on ownership from the right to share in the instant land, the Defendants asserted that the Plaintiff Committee has the duty to remove the instant building and deliver the instant infringed land, which is the site thereof.

However, the evidence presented by the Plaintiff Committee is alone delegated by the Plaintiff Committee to exercise the right to claim the removal of disturbance based on ownership from the right to share holders of the instant land.

arrow