logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
Text
Reasons
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 대전고등법원 2015.12.23 2015나11883
건물등철거
Text

1. Revocation of a judgment of the first instance;

2. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

3. All costs of the lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

Reasons

1. The reasoning for the court’s explanation on this part of the basic facts is that the reasoning for the judgment of the court of first instance is the same as that for the judgment of the court of first instance under Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

2. Determination:

A. According to the above facts of determination as to the cause of the claim, the defendant is obligated to restore the land of this case to its original state and deliver it to the plaintiff who is the landowner of this case.

Unless there are other special circumstances, all of the asphalts and concrete packagings installed on the land of this case must be removed.

B. The defendant's argument 1) The main point of the defendant's argument is that the land category was a road since the plaintiff acquired it, and currently is used as a road; the removal of the road packing of the land of this case may infringe the defendant's right to passage over surrounding land such as the defendant joining the defendant; even if the above road packing is removed, the removal of the land of this case is highly likely to be used as the passage of the plaintiff and the defendant joining the defendant; while the removal of the road of this case is highly profitable to the plaintiff, the removal of the land of this case is highly likely to bring considerable benefits to the plaintiff; the plaintiff's claim of this case of this case of this case of this case of this case of this case of this case of this case of this case of this case is intended to inflict damages on the other party and there is no benefit to the other party; if it can be viewed that it violates social order objectively, the exercise of the right is not allowed as an abuse of right, and the requirement that the exercise of the right would inflict damages on the other party can be confirmed by objective circumstances, which lack subjective interests of the right holder.

arrow