logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 대전지방법원홍성지원 2016.11.30 2016가단6330
건물등철거
Text

1. The defendant shall remove each building listed in the separate sheet No. 2 to the plaintiff, and the land listed in the separate sheet No. 1 to the plaintiff.

Reasons

1. The facts of recognition D (Defendant’s high tide) was determined on October 17, 1913 by the land listed in Annex A (hereinafter “instant land”). E (Defendant’s increase records) completed the registration of initial ownership of the instant land on December 17, 1937, and F (Defendant’s white records) completed the registration of initial ownership on July 8, 1981 for the instant land on September 8, 1973, and the Plaintiff completed the registration of initial ownership transfer on May 25, 2016 only for sale by compulsory auction on May 19, 2016.

A building listed in [Attachment List No. 2 (hereinafter “instant building”) on the instant land was newly constructed around 1870 and extended around 1930. G (Defendant’s protocol) registered as the owner of the instant building on April 8, 198, and completed the registration of ownership preservation on August 5, 2010, and the Defendant completed the registration of ownership transfer on the instant real estate on August 3, 2010.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap 1 through 3, Eul 1 through 9 (including each number if there is a tentative number), the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination

A. According to the above facts, the defendant, as the owner of the land of this case, has a duty to remove the building of this case and deliver the land of this case to the plaintiff seeking the removal of interference, barring special circumstances.

B. The Defendant asserted to the effect that “E died on April 19, 1939, G succeeded to Australia, and accordingly, G owned the instant land and the instant building. G acquired legal superficies under the customary law for the continuation of the instant building by completing the registration of ownership transfer on the instant land on July 8, 1981.” As to this, the Plaintiff resisted to the effect that “E acquired legal superficies under the customary law for the continuation of the instant building, even if the statutory superficies under the customary law was established, even if the statutory superficies under the customary law, the period of existence has expired.

Domins, even if they were.

arrow