logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 춘천지방법원 2015.04.24 2014나2376
토지인도 등
Text

1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

Purport of claim and appeal

The first instance court.

Reasons

1. The reasoning for this court’s explanation is the same as the part of the judgment of the court of first instance, and thus, citing it by the main text of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act

2. In the appellate court, the Plaintiff asserts to the effect that, in light of the location of the bridge roof 2nd floor and the form of the land No. 2 that was constructed on the land of this case at the time of the time when the Deceased’s construction of the building of this case, it is not possible to construct the building of this case additionally on the land of this case unless the land of this case was infringed upon by considering the location of the 2nd floor roof of this case and the shape of the land No. 2nd at the time of the construction of the building of this case, it is not possible to build the building of this case on the land of this case. As the deceased and the Defendant’s possession is not independent possession from the time of the commencement of possession, but it was known that G, the owner of the land adjacent to the land of this case, the deceased and the Defendant, around 191, who was the owner of the land adjacent to the land of this case, has invaded the building of this case.

① However, since the instant building was an unauthorized building constructed without a separate design drawing or land survey around 1978 and was more than the two houses constructed on the instant land No. 2, around 1996, the Plaintiff’s first argument on a different premise is without merit. ② Even if a person was aware at the beginning of possession that another’s land adjacent to his/her own land was owned by himself/herself and possessed it later, he/she did not change the possession into the possession of another (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2001Da5913, May 29, 2001). The Plaintiff’s second assertion is without merit.

3. If so, the Plaintiff’s instant case.

arrow