logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
Text
Reasons
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 서울북부지방법원 2018.12.14 2017가단143226
제3자이의
Text

1. The instant lawsuit shall be dismissed.

2. With respect to cases where this Court applies for the suspension of compulsory execution 2017 Chicago10348, December 2017.

Reasons

1. Basic facts

A. E, the owner of the instant unauthorized Building on the ground of the instant land, died on April 4, 2002, and its inheritors C, Plaintiff, etc.

B. The Defendant acquired the ownership of the instant land on May 8, 2008.

The Plaintiff filed a lawsuit against C on the ground that C is engaged in restaurant business by owning a building, stairs, flat, etc. on the instant land. On July 13, 2017, the Plaintiff filed a lawsuit against C on the grounds that C is conducting restaurant business, and filed a lawsuit on the removal of the building and delivery of the site (preliminary claim) with Seoul Northern District Court 2015dan28965, and on July 13, 2017, “C” was established at the rate of KRW 79,00,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,00,000,00,00,00,00.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, entry of Gap evidence 1 to 3, purport of the whole pleadings

2. The plaintiff asserted that since the plaintiff co-owner who jointly inherited the building without permission on the ground of the land of this case with C, the defendant's compulsory execution under the conciliation protocol of this case, which only acquired against C except the plaintiff, should be denied because it infringes on the plaintiff's co-ownership.

3. The circumstances acknowledged by the overall purport of the evidence and arguments as seen earlier, namely, C, from around November 201 to around the instant land, operated restaurant business by using structures, etc. described in the main port on the instant land. On the other hand, the Plaintiff appears to have no interest in the said unauthorized building while residing in a foreign country. Although the Defendant recognized the existence of other co-owners of the unauthorized building in the preceding lawsuit, C was based on the facts up to November 30, 2017.

arrow