logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 의정부지방법원고양지원 2020.07.17 2019가단79707
토지인도 등
Text

Of the buildings listed in attached Table 3, the defendant points out of the attached Table 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, and 1.

Reasons

1. In full view of the purport of Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 4 (including all branches number), Eul evidence Nos. 1 and 3 as well as the overall purport of video and pleadings as to the cause of the claim, the plaintiff is the owner who completed the registration of ownership transfer with respect to the land listed in the separate sheet No. 1 on March 27, 2018, and the land listed in the separate sheet No. 2 (hereinafter referred to as "each land of this case") listed in the separate sheet No. 1 and No. 2 on April 13, 2018, and the building listed in the separate sheet No. 3 (hereinafter referred to as "the building of this case"), which is owned by the deceased C's heir, indicated in the separate sheet No. 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, and 1 as to the building of this case, and the defendant concluded the lease contract and the move-in report of this case on the land of this case.

According to the above facts, the defendant, as the landowner of this case, is obligated to leave the part of the above bed part of the building of this case to the plaintiff seeking the exclusion of interference with ownership based on ownership.

2. Determination on the defense, etc.

A. As to the claim of statutory superficies under customary law, the Defendant owned 370 square meters (hereinafter “instant D”) and all of the instant buildings in Pakistan-si, Pakistan-si, the parcel number of the instant building, but on August 19, 196, E acquired the ownership of the instant D and thus the owner of the land and the building on its ground changed. As such, the Plaintiff, the owner of the instant building, recognized the statutory superficies under customary law, and the Defendant concluded a lease agreement lawfully with the deceased and possessed the instant building, and thus, did not have any obligation to leave the instant building.

However, even according to the Defendant’s assertion, the net C, the owner of the instant building, is entitled to statutory superficies under the customary law on the instant land.

arrow