logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 대전지방법원 2019.02.20 2018나3319
건물철거 등
Text

1. The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

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

Purport of claim and appeal

purport.

Reasons

The reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance is as follows, except for adding the judgment in paragraph (2) below, and the reason of the judgment of the court of first instance is as follows (excluding the part limited to co-defendant B of the court of first instance). Therefore, all relevant parts are cited in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420

Around July 12, 2016, when a decision to commence voluntary auction on the instant land by the Defendant of the statutory superficies claim was registered, the instant housing cannot be deemed to constitute a building in light of social concept. However, the instant housing and sperm met the requirements for the building in around July 10, 2017, when the Plaintiff paid the sale price.

The Defendant acquired legal superficies for the instant housing and sperm, and the Plaintiff knowingly received a successful bid for the instant land, so the Plaintiff’s claim should be dismissed.

Judgment

Legal superficies under Article 366 of the Civil Act are recognized only when there is a building on the land which is the object of a mortgage from the time the mortgage is created, and in case the mortgager constructed a building on the land which is not a building after establishing a mortgage on the land which is the object of a mortgage, but the site and its ground are different from the owner due to auction in the voluntary auction procedure, the statutory superficies under the above Article is not recognized, and there is no customary statutory superficies

(See Supreme Court Decision 92Da2030 delivered on June 25, 1993). First, we examine the sperm of this case.

In order to be a building as an independent real estate, a minimum pole, roof, and main wall must be installed (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2000Da51872, Jan. 16, 2001). According to each image or entry in the evidence No. 3-1 through No. 7, it can be recognized that the instant refining can move to other land, and the images or entry in the evidence No. 1 can be recognized as an independent real estate with a pole, roof, and main wall.

arrow