(영문) 대구지방법원 2019.07.17 2018나322003

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) 대구지방법원 2019.07.17 2018나322003

토사수거

Text

1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

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

The purport of the claim and appeal is the purport of the appeal.

Reasons

1. The reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance cited by the court of first instance is the same as the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance, except for the dismissal of a part of the following, and thus, it is acceptable in accordance with the main sentence

Under the second sentence of the first instance judgment, the 5th sentence’s “ January 24, 2015” is deemed as “ January 27, 2015.”

Under the second page of the judgment of the first instance, the term “large 1979 square meters” in the fourth place shall be deemed as “one thousand square meters”.

The 3rd judgment of the first instance court “the result of the appraiser K’s appraisal” in the 14th judgment is regarded as “the result of the appraiser’s appraisal in the first instance trial.”

The part of “A. Determination” from No. 21 to No. 15 of the first instance judgment shall be modified as follows:

“B. As of February 23, 2018, the cadastral boundary point and the bottom of the CJ land as of February 23, 2018, each point indicated in the annexed map Nos. 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, and 1, connected each point of which is indicated in the annexed map No. 1, 2, 4, 6, 7, 8, and 1, and in the case of (b) part of the ship connected each point of the same map No. 1, B, C, D, E, F, H, H, and A, there is a difference of 3.80 meters in height in the case of (c) part of the ship connected each point of the same map No. 5, 7, and 8. However, in full view of the following circumstances recognized by the purport of the entire arguments and arguments, there is insufficient evidence to acknowledge that the Defendants changed the part of the ship to the above status, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge the remainder of the part of the land at present height.

2) The Defendants recognized all the duty to deliver the part of the instant crime to the Plaintiff in the relevant judgment and the instant case, and the farmer said that the part of the instant crime was not cultivated. 3) The L appearing in the transcript (A 5-1 and 2) submitted by the Plaintiff recognizes that it is rather close to the Plaintiff than the Defendants.

참조조문

-민사소송법 제420조

유사 판례

-대구지방법원 서부지원 2018.11.21 2018가단309

-서울고등법원 2019.05.17 2018나2047876

-서울서부지방법원 2018.07.13 2017나41716

-대전지방법원 2019.10.18 2019나102701

-대전지방법원 2015.11.05 2015나100004