logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 창원지방법원진주지원 2014.11.28 2014가단31444
건물등철거
Text

1. The plaintiff (appointed)'s claim is dismissed.

2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the plaintiff (appointed party).

Reasons

1. On October 7, 2011, the Plaintiff (Appointed; hereinafter “Plaintiff”) and the Appointor D and E (hereinafter “Plaintiff, etc.”) purchased the instant land in the procedure for compulsory auction by Jinwon District Court Jinwon Branch (hereinafter “instant auction”) and the Plaintiff purchased the instant land on October 7, 201, with respect to the 2/40 shares among them, the Appointor D, with respect to 19/40 shares, the Appointor E, with respect to 19/40 shares, and with respect to 19/40 shares, the Appointor E, with respect to 19/40 shares received on December 6, 201, and the fact that the Defendant is the owner of the instant building located on the instant land, there is no dispute between the parties.

Thus, the defendant has the duty to remove each part of the attached drawings, such as the above purport of the claim, among the buildings of this case, as requested by the plaintiff, unless there are special circumstances.

2. The defendant's defense and judgment were originally owned by the defendant, but since the land of this case was sold to the plaintiff et al. by the above auction, and the owner of the land and the building became different, the defendant acquired legal superficies on the land of this case for the purpose of owning the building of this case. Thus, the plaintiff's assertion is groundless.

In case where land and a building on the ground belong to the same owner, and the owners of both land or a building become different due to sale and purchase or any other cause, the owner of the building shall have the superficies under customary law for the building acquired from the owner of the land, unless there exists an agreement to remove the building, etc., and the building shall not be necessarily registered but shall not be superior even if it is an unauthorized building.

(see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 91Da16631, Aug. 13, 1991). Gambags, Gap evidence 1, and Eul evidence 1 through 7.

arrow