(영문) 서울동부지방법원 2017.06.14 2016나4329

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) 서울동부지방법원 2017.06.14 2016나4329

토지인도

Text

1. The part of the judgment of the court of first instance against the plaintiff shall be revoked.

2. The Defendants are not less than 1,722 square meters before Cheongbuk-gun, Cheongbuk-gun.

Reasons

1. In the first instance trial, the Plaintiff filed a claim for return of unjust enrichment with respect to the Defendants: (a) delivery of 1,815 square meters (hereinafter “D land”) and 1,722 square meters (hereinafter “E land”); (b) removal of D land storage; (c) removal of E land surface containers; and (d) removal of unjust enrichment; and (c) the court of first instance rejected the claim; and (d) the claim.

Since only the plaintiff filed an appeal, the object of this court's adjudication is limited to the claim part.

2. Facts of recognition;

A.F purchased D land and E on March 31, 1979 and completed the registration of ownership transfer on April 2, 1979 with respect to each of the above lands.

(hereinafter referred to as the “instant land”) b.

The F died on June 10, 1993, and the Plaintiff completed the registration of ownership transfer based on inheritance with respect to 30/285 shares of the instant land as one of its inheritors.

C. The Defendants each installed a container-type office in the part (A) of the ship, which connects each point of entry 13, 14, 15, 16, and 13 attached Table 2 to E’s ground appraisal in the instant land with the name of “P”, and installed a container-type lodging and an appurtenant building (B) in sequence with each point of entry 17, 18, 21, 22, 23, 24, and 17 attached Table 17 attached to E’s appraisal in the instant land.

(hereinafter referred to as “instant container”). 【No dispute exists, Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 9, the result of a request for surveying and appraisal to the Director of the Korea Land Information Corporation, the purport of the entire pleadings, as a whole.

3. According to the above facts of recognition, the Defendants are obligated to remove the instant container to the Plaintiff upon the Plaintiff’s request that the Plaintiff exercise the right to claim the removal of disturbance based on ownership as co-owners of the instant land.

As to this, the Defendants held that Q, the father of Defendant C, owned 45/285 shares of the instant land from G (LF).

유사 판례

-서울동부지방법원 2016.07.22 2015가단6181

-수원지방법원 성남지원 2017.02.07 2015가단27599 (1)

-대구지방법원포항지원 2016.08.30 2015가단304998

-의정부지방법원 2019.04.09 2017가단124235

-창원지방법원 진주지원 2018.02.06 2017가단3174