(영문) 대전지방법원공주지원 2015.06.04 2013가단2480

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) 대전지방법원공주지원 2015.06.04 2013가단2480

방해제거

Text

1. The part concerning the claim for removal of dynasium in the instant lawsuit shall be dismissed.

2. The defendant shall pay to the plaintiff 405,161 won and the plaintiff.

Reasons

1. We examine ex officio the determination on the part of the claim for removal of an embankment.

In civil procedure, the purport of the claim must be clearly identified so that its contents and scope can be clearly identified. Since the issue of specification of the claim is an ex officio investigation, if the purport of the claim is not specified, the court shall order the correction ex officio regardless of the defendant's objection, and if the plaintiff does not comply with the order of correction, the court shall dismiss the lawsuit (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 80Da2904, Sept. 8, 1981). However, although the area of the bank to remove the part of the plaintiff's claim for removal of the plaintiff's debate was specified, since the height of the bank and the quantity of soil to remove it are not specified, it cannot be seen that the entry of the claim in the purport of the purport of the request is clearly identified as the purport of the removal by the plaintiff to the defendant.

Accordingly, the court ordered the Plaintiff to specify the purport of the claim ex officio, but the fact that the Plaintiff did not comply with the claim is obvious in this court. Thus, the part of the claim for removal of dynasium in this case is unlawful.

2. The judgment on the part of the claim for the delivery of land is based on the part 51 square meters in the lower part of the claim on the part on the part on the part on the part on the part on the part on the part on which the claim was stated, so the fact that the soil was stored on the part on the part on the part on the part on the part on the part on the part on the part on the part on the part on the part on which the claim was sought by the Defendant, and that the soil was stored on the part on the part on the part on the part

3. Determination on the plaintiff's claim for refund of expenses for boundary restoration surveying

A. The Plaintiff’s soil on land owned by the Defendant flows into land owned by the Plaintiff between the Defendant and the Defendant.

참조판례

-대법원 1981. 9. 8. 선고 80다2904 판결

유사 판례

-대전고등법원(청주) 2012.11.27 2011나1041

-서울중앙지방법원 2020.12.09 2020가단5055790

-창원지방법원 2015.01.29 2014가합3429

-서울중앙지방법원 2016.12.15 2016가단101288

-수원지방법원 2016.11.03 2015가단140147