logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 대구지방법원안동지원 2017.11.01 2016가단4037
건물철거 및 토지인도
Text

1. The Defendant, among the land size of 129 square meters in the permanent residence of the Plaintiff, shall follow the indication of the attached Form 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, and 1.

Reasons

1. In full view of the reasoning of the judgment as to the cause for the claim, Gap evidence Nos. 1 and 2, and the purport of the entire argument as to the appraisal of the Korea Land Information Corporation in this court’s entrustment to the Korea Land Information Corporation, the Plaintiff may recognize the existence of 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, and 1 of the separate sheet Nos. 1, 7, and 7, 7, 7, and 7, 7, 7, and 7, 7, 7, and 7, 7, 7, and 7, 7, 7, and 7, 7, 200 square meters of the separate sheet No. 1, 206 among the land in this case.

According to the above facts of recognition, the defendant is obligated to remove the above corridor and marina part and deliver the site to the plaintiff who is the owner of the land of this case.

2. As to the defendant's assertion, the defendant asserts that the plaintiff's claim of this case constitutes an abuse of rights.

In order for the exercise of the right to be an abuse of the right, the objective of the exercise should be to inflict pain on the other party and to inflict damage on the other party, and there should be no benefit to the person who exercises the right, and objectively, the exercise of the right should be viewed as a violation of social order. Unless it falls under such cases, even if the loss of the other party is significantly high than the benefit the person has gained by the exercise of the right, such circumstance alone does not constitute abuse of the right.

[See Supreme Court Decision 90Da10346, 10353 (Counterclaim) Decided June 14, 1991] However, it is difficult to view the claim of this case solely for the purpose of causing damage and pain to the Defendant as having no interest to the Plaintiff, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it otherwise.

Therefore, the defendant's above assertion is without merit.

3. Thus, the plaintiff's conclusion is that of this case.

arrow