(영문) 창원지방법원 2015.04.17 2013가단18274

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) 창원지방법원 2015.04.17 2013가단18274

건물등철거

Text

1. The Plaintiff:

A. Defendant B and C indicated on the separate sheet No. 16, 17, 18, 19, 20.

Reasons

1. The following facts are found to have not been partly disputed between the Plaintiff, Defendant B, and D, or may be acknowledged in full view of the entries in Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 5, the results of the appraiser J’s appraisal, and the purport of the entire pleadings. The plaintiff and the remaining Defendants are deemed to have led to the confessions

(Article 150(3) and (1) of the Civil Procedure Act

On May 10, 2010, the Plaintiff purchased the land listed in the separate sheet (hereinafter “instant land”) from K and completed the registration of ownership transfer as the receipt No. 41280 on May 13, 2010.

B. The deceased L was owned by newly constructing a new house and warehouse on the instant land as indicated in the attached land appraisal drawings. However, on December 26, 2009, Defendant FF, G, B, H, and I inherited each of the property by inheritance of 1/5 shares, respectively.

(L at the time of death, M’s inheritance share was ultimately inherited to the above Defendants, who are children). The above (a) and (b) are occupied by Defendant B and C.

C. Defendant E newly constructs and owns the instant land as indicated in the attached appraisal drawings, (c), (d), and (e), and the said part of the housing is occupied by Defendant D, the mother of Defendant E.

2. According to the above facts of recognition, the defendants, without title, have interfered with the plaintiff's ownership by owning a building on the land of this case or by occupying that building. The defendants are obligated to remove the building with respect to the shares of 1/5 of the above (A), (b), and (3) the above (c), (d), and (e) the housing and the warehouse, and to deliver the site to the plaintiff. ② The defendants Eul and C are obligated to withdraw from the above building. ③ The defendants Eul are obligated to remove the above (c), (d), and (e) the housing and deliver the site to the plaintiff. ④ The defendants D are obligated to leave the housing of this part of the above (c).

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim against the defendants is with merit.

참조조문

-민사소송법 제150조 제3항

유사 판례

-서울중앙지방법원 2016.03.17 2014가단5169506

-대전지방법원논산지원 2015.10.01 2014가단5893

-대구지방법원 서부지원 2018.05.02 2016가단5003

-의정부지방법원 고양지원 2021.01.22 2019가단85467