logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 대전지방법원천안지원 2017.07.12 2016가단17169
토지인도 등
Text

1. The Defendant connects the Plaintiff with each point of the attached Form 1, 2, 3, 4, and 1 among the land size of 509 square meters in Asan-si.

Reasons

1. Facts of recognition;

A. On April 18, 2016, the Plaintiff completed the registration of ownership transfer for the reason of public sale on April 1, 2016, with respect to the land 509 square meters (hereinafter “instant land”).

B. The Defendant installed one steel greenhouse (Ga 2,250 cm, 700 cm in length, 400 cm in height, 400 cm in height) on the part of the instant land, which connects each point of the separate sheet Nos. 1, 2, 3, 4, and 1, among the instant land, and occupied the instant land while keeping farming materials, goods, etc. inside the said land.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap 1, 2 evidence, Eul 1 evidence, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The assertion and judgment

A. According to the facts of the above recognition as to the cause of the claim, unless there is any assertion or proof as to the title to occupy the land of this case, the defendant removed 1 1 m2, 2, 3, 4, and 1 m2 of the instant land which was installed in the part of the ship connecting each of the points in the order of the annexed drawings among the land of this case to the plaintiff (Ga 2,250 m2,250 m2, 700 m2, 400 m2, 400 m2, 400 m2, 157.5m2 of the instant land, and takes all farming materials and goods inside the said steel greenhouse, and has

B. The defendant's assertion argues that the contract is renewed or the purchase of structures is requested in accordance with Articles 643 and 283 of the Civil Act, by asserting that the land lease period for the purpose of owning the building or other structures expires.

It is not sufficient to recognize that the Plaintiff and the Defendant entered into a lease agreement as alleged by the Defendant only with the document of No. 1, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it. Therefore, the above assertion by the Defendant is without merit.

3. In conclusion, the plaintiff's claim of this case is reasonable, and it is so decided as per Disposition.

arrow