(영문) 대전지방법원 서산지원 2018.08.08 2018가단50005

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) 대전지방법원 서산지원 2018.08.08 2018가단50005

토지인도

Text

1. The plaintiff's claims against the defendants are all dismissed.

2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

Reasons

1. Basic facts

A. The Plaintiff completed the registration of ownership transfer on March 3, 2003 with respect to D major 395 square meters (hereinafter “instant land”).

B. The instant land is a house built, and E is registered as an owner of a wooden house with a size of 29 square meters in the building lot number ledger in which the said land is located.

C. On September 11, 2006, the conciliation was concluded as follows in the lawsuit filed by the Plaintiff against E (Seoul District Court Seosan Branch No. 2006Gadan5767, hereinafter “relevant case”).

① E shall transfer the instant land to the Plaintiff by December 31, 2006.

② By December 31, 2006, E transfers the instant land to the Plaintiff 57.3 square meters, 14.2 square meters, 14.1 square meters, and toilets 1.1 square meters on the instant land, by December 31, 2006, and implements the procedures for the registration of transfer of ownership on the general building ledger.

③ The Plaintiff shall pay 500,000 won to E by December 31, 2006.

[Reasons for Recognition] Class A’s Evidence Nos. 1, 2, and 3, Gap’s Evidence No. 4’s video, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Plaintiff’s assertion and judgment

A. The Defendants asserted by the Plaintiff without title possess the instant building and plastic houses on the instant land owned by the Plaintiff and possess the instant land.

Therefore, the Defendants are obligated to remove the instant building and plastic houses to deliver the instant land to the Plaintiff, and pay the money calculated by the rate of KRW 210,000 per month from January 1, 2007 to the date of delivery of the said land due to unjust enrichment.

B. According to the purport of the panel pleading, the Defendants appear to be the inheritor E, the owner of the building ledger, but according to the result of the conciliation of the pertinent case, the Plaintiff acquired the right to dispose of the instant building, and there is no evidence to prove otherwise that the Defendants are the owners of the instant building and the vinyl, or have the right to dispose of the said building.

Therefore, the prior plaintiff's assertion is without need to look at different points on different premises.

유사 판례

-춘천지방법원 속초지원 2018.10.12 2016가단301808

-대전지방법원서산지원 2017.11.08 2016가단54652

-춘천지방법원 영월지원 2017.01.18 2015가단12241

-인천지방법원 2021.02.18 2020가단221364

-인천지방법원 2017.01.11 2015가단52830