logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 서울중앙지방법원 2020.02.18 2019가단5097033
건물등철거
Text

1. For the plaintiffs:

A. Defendant E shall indicate the attached Form 2 drawings (A) on the ground of the land listed in attached Form 1(1).

Reasons

1. Determination as to the request for removal and delivery

A. In full view of the purport of the entire pleadings, the facts in the separate sheet Nos. 1 to 5 and 13 (including each number) as to the claim against Defendant E are acknowledged.

Therefore, Defendant E (hereinafter “Defendant E”) is obligated to remove, respectively, part of cement block building, string roof factory building, part of 79 square meters of strekes, and part of 79 square meters of strekes of strekes, and part of 54 square meters of strekes of the land indicated in attached Table 1(1) and attached Table 1(2), and to deliver each land of the above paragraphs (a) and (b).

On the other hand, the Defendant Company: (a) occupied the land of the above paragraphs (a) and (b) above for twenty (20) years from April 27, 1983; and (b) completed the prescriptive acquisition; and (b) asserted that the Plaintiffs’ claim for removal and delivery is groundless; (b) however, the Defendant Company occupied this part of land for twenty (20)

Even if the possessor whose acquisition by prescription has been completed due to possession has a right to claim for the transfer of ownership against the owner at the time of the completion of the acquisition by prescription, and thus, it cannot be asserted against the third party who acquired the ownership of the real estate by completing the registration of ownership transfer prior to the completion of the acquisition by prescription (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 89Meu1305, Apr. 9, 191). According to the aforementioned evidence, Plaintiff D completed the registration of ownership transfer on the land listed in [Attachment 1 and 2] on May 3, 201, and thus, the Defendant Company cannot oppose the completion of the acquisition by prescription.

The above argument of the defendant company is without merit.

B. The indication of claims 1) as to claims against the remaining Defendants: The grounds for recognition are as stated in the attached Form. 2: deemed confession (Article 208(3)2 of the Civil Procedure Act).

arrow