logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 대전지방법원 공주지원 2017.01.12 2016가단1341
건물등철거
Text

1. The Defendant: (a) out of C Forest land of 1,398 square meters in the city of public residence to the Plaintiff;

(a)each point of the separate sheet No. 2, 3, 11, 9, 10, and 2.

Reasons

1. According to Gap evidence Nos. 1 and 5, Gap evidence Nos. 2, Gap evidence Nos. 2, and appraiser D’s survey and appraisal results, and the purport of the whole pleadings as to the cause of the claim, the plaintiff is the owner of C forest land No. 1,398 square meters (hereinafter “the instant forest”). The defendant, in turn, connects each point of the attached Table Nos. 2, 3, 11, 9, 10, and 2 on the forest of this case, he owns part of the septic tank 7 square meters and the attached Table Nos. 8, 12, 13, 5, 6, 7, and 8 in order to connect each point of the above 8, 12, 13, 5, 7, and 6 square meters on the ship with each point of the above 1, 2, 2, 10, and 1000 square meters on the forest of this case, he/she can recognize each of the attached Form No. 31, 314, 51, 2, 14, 5, and 1.

According to the above facts, it is determined that the defendant owned the instant housing, etc., and possessed the part of the instant housing, etc. and each of the said parts. Thus, the defendant is obligated to remove the instant housing, etc. and deliver the relevant housing site and each of the said parts to the plaintiff, who is the owner of the instant forest, unless there are special circumstances to the contrary.

2. On June 2004, the Defendant asserted that the Defendant permitted the possession and use of the forest of this case by the Defendant, since the former owner of the forest of this case and the Plaintiff did not raise any objection for a long time, even though the Defendant, around June 2004, constructed a retaining wall and a building, such as an embankment, in the instant forest.

However, there is not sufficient evidence to acknowledge the evidence Nos. 1 and 2 only, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it, the defendant's above assertion is without merit.

3. The plaintiff's claim against the defendant in the conclusion is with merit, and it is decided to accept it.

arrow