logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 대구고등법원 2016.05.04 2015나23445
토지인도
Text

1. The part concerning the principal lawsuit in the judgment of the court of first instance is revoked, and the plaintiff's claim on the principal lawsuit is dismissed;

2...

Reasons

1. The principal lawsuit and counterclaim shall be deemed to be filed together with the facts of recognition;

가. 분할 및 상속관계 1) 원고의 조부(祖父)인 B 소유의 영주시 C 답 1,444평(이하 ‘이 사건 분할 전 토지’라 한다

(1) On August 15, 1937, each land indicated in Paragraph (1) in the indication of the attached real estate (hereinafter referred to as “instant land”) as indicated in Section 1 and Section 2 in the indication of the attached real estate shall be deemed to be “the instant land”, and “each land of this case”, including the instant land Nos. 1 and 2.

(B) On September 5, 1949, the land category of the instant land was changed to a road on the same day, each of which was divided into the following four parcels: C 28 permanent residence and D 1,217 permanent residence. Of which, on September 5, 1949, E, she was succeeded to each of the instant land.

3) On March 31, 1956, E was considered as deceased on March 31, 1956, and the Plaintiff succeeded to each of the instant land. On January 4, 2008, the Plaintiff completed the registration of ownership transfer on each of the instant land due to inheritance on September 5, 1949. (B) The Defendant’s possession of each of the instant land was provided for public passage from August 15, 1937, the land category of which was changed to a road, and thereafter, the Defendant thereafter was a permanent urban planning on March 7, 1962, and the instant land No. 2 was determined and publicly announced as a permanent urban planning on December 7, 1976, and the instant land was occupied and managed by the Defendant under the Special Metropolitan City Court on March 14, 1981, and the Plaintiff was designated as the Defendant’s occupation and management of each of the instant land under the Special Metropolitan City on March 16, 1988.

2. The defendant is the defendant with respect to each of the lands of this case in the above litigation proceedings.

arrow