(영문) 수원지방법원 2018.12.12 2018나142 | 리걸엔진

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) 수원지방법원 2018.12.12 2018나142

건물철거등

Text

1. Revocation of a judgment of the first instance;

2. All of the plaintiff's claims are dismissed.

3. All costs of the lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

Reasons

1. Basic facts

A. The Defendant owned the instant land (1) on July 28, 1998, on the ground of the donation on the same date, and on the ground of the Gyeonggi-do Kaju-gun Dambro 671m2 (hereinafter “instant land”).

(2) On April 27, 2005, Nonparty D (former E) completed the registration of ownership transfer on the instant land due to public sale conducted on April 15, 2005, and thereafter, the Plaintiff completed the registration of ownership transfer on the instant land on August 20, 2009 due to sale conducted on August 7, 2009.

B. The ownership relationship of each building of this case 1) On the land of this case, each of the buildings listed in the separate sheet (hereinafter “each of the buildings of this case”).

(ii)In 1952 and 1965, each new construction was made by the owner on the building ledger, and the owner on the building ledger (hereinafter referred to as “the network”).

(2) The deceased died on February 23, 2002, and his heir was G, the Defendant, the wife’s child, and H, I, and J.

G, H, I, and J have prepared a written confirmation to the effect that “the Defendant has consented to, and confirmed the fact that each of the instant buildings was inherited en bloc by the Defendant” (hereinafter referred to as “instant written confirmation”) and issued it to the Defendant.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 3, Eul evidence Nos. 1, 2, 7, and 8, and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. According to the above facts of determination as to the cause of the claim, it is reasonable to view that there was a division consultation among the co-inheritors of the deceased regarding each of the buildings of this case by preparing and delivering the written confirmation of this case by the deceased except the defendant. Since each of the buildings of this case should be deemed to be a sole ownership of the defendant retroactively to the time of death of the deceased, the defendant, the owner of each of the buildings of this case, as the owner of each of the buildings of this case, removed each of the buildings of this case, and the land of this case.

유사 판례

-청주지방법원 충주지원 2018.09.13 2018가단773

-수원지방법원 2018.08.22 2017가단511484

-서울중앙지방법원 2017.08.24 2016가단5062562

-춘천지방법원 2018.01.30 2017가단51644

-서울남부지방법원 2016.09.27 2016가단200884