logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 전주지방법원 2019.11.01 2017가단28254
토지인도
Text

The defendant connects each point of the attached Form 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, and 1 among the area of 200 square meters in Jeonju-si D, Jeonju-si.

Reasons

The Plaintiffs are sharing a lot of 200 square meters (hereinafter “instant land”). (No. 1) The Defendant owns two-story neighborhood living facilities (hereinafter “instant building”) on the ground of Yansan-gu, Seoul Special Metropolitan City (hereinafter “the instant building”) adjacent to the said land (No. 2), and the stairs constituting the instant building, are invaded by the instant land as shown in the attached Form.

(C) Unless there exist special circumstances, barring special circumstances, the Defendant is obligated to remove stairs that invaded the instant land and deliver the part of the land to the Plaintiffs.

The defendant asserts that since the plaintiffs renounced their exclusive, exclusive, and exclusive rights to use the land of this case, the defendant cannot seek the delivery of the above land.

However, even in cases where a land owner renounces his/her exclusive, exclusive, or exclusive right to use, the land may claim the return of the land and the removal of the disturbance by exercising a real right claim against a third party who illegally occupies the land (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2001Da8493, Apr. 13, 2001). Thus, the defendant's above assertion cannot be accepted.

The defendant asserts that since the building of this case is leased to F and does not reside in the above building, it cannot be deemed that the land of this case is possessed, and that the stairs over which the land of this case was invaded are installed by F, and the defendant does not have the authority to remove it.

The land on which a building site is located is possessed by the owner of the building, and even if the owner of the building does not actually occupy the building or its site, the same applies (see Supreme Court Decision 95Da47282, Jun. 14, 1996). Thus, the argument that the Defendant did not occupy the relevant part of the land of this case cannot be accepted.

The part of the stairs over which the land of this case was invaded is the object attached to the building of this case, and constituting a whole building of this case.

arrow