logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 부산지방법원 2017.05.24 2016나49198
토지인도
Text

1. The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

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

Purport of claim and appeal

1...

Reasons

1. Basic facts

A. On August 24, 2015, the Plaintiff completed the registration of ownership transfer on the ground of sale on May 18, 2015, with respect to 11,273 square meters in Seo-gu Busan Metropolitan City (hereinafter “instant land”).

B. The Defendant is a person who owns a building listed in the attached list (hereinafter “instant building”) on the ground of the instant land.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, entry of Gap evidence 1 to 3, purport of the whole pleadings

2. According to the above facts of recognition as to the cause of the claim, the defendant is obligated to remove the building of this case and deliver the land of this case to the plaintiff seeking the removal of disturbance as the owner of the land of this case, unless there are special circumstances.

3. Judgment on the defendant's assertion

A. As to the claim of statutory superficies under customary law, the Defendant asserted that the previous owner of the instant land acquired the consent to use the instant land from B, who was the previous owner of the instant land, and that the instant building was newly constructed with the consent to use the instant land, and that there was no special agreement to remove the instant building in the event the owner of the instant land was changed between B and B, and that the Defendant acquired statutory superficies

Legal superficies under customary law are established when the owner of a building or a building belongs to the same owner, but the building or the land is changed due to sale or other reasons. Therefore, if a building is newly constructed on the land with the consent of the owner of the land, there is no room for establishing legal superficies under customary law.

(See Supreme Court Decision 90Meu26003 delivered on October 30, 1990). Therefore, the defendant’s above assertion is without merit.

B. The plaintiff is obligated to purchase the building of this case as the person holding the superficies of this case and the right to claim the purchase of the building of this case at a reasonable price. Thus, the plaintiff is also obligated to purchase the building of this case and compensation to the defendant.

arrow