logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 광주지방법원순천지원 2020.06.18 2019가단80104
토지인도
Text

1. The defendant,

A. The Plaintiff collected trees planted on the 814mm2 in Ma-si, Macheon-si, D, and transferred the said land to the Plaintiff.

Reasons

Plaintiff

A and F are ordered on October 2, 2018 No. 1. A.

The fact that each 1/2 of the real estate listed in paragraph (1) (hereinafter referred to as “land 1 of this case”) acquired co-ownership shares, and Plaintiff B and G are ordered as of October 2, 2018.

The real estate stated in paragraph (2) (hereinafter “instant land”) has co-ownership shares of 1/2 each of them. However, the Defendant may recognize the possession of each of the instant land by planting trees on each of the instant land, or by taking account of the overall purport of pleadings in subparagraphs A-1 and A-2, without any dispute between the parties, or by taking account of the whole purport of pleadings.

According to the above facts, the defendant, as co-owners of the land No. 1 of this case, is liable to collect trees planted on the land above and deliver the land No. 1 of this case to the plaintiff who filed the lawsuit of this case as a preservation act for the jointly-owned property as co-owners of the land of this case, and to collect trees planted on the land above and deliver the land to the plaintiff B, who is the owner of the land No. 2 of this case.

On the other hand, the defendant asserts to the effect that the claim of this case is unreasonable, since he is a lessee of each land of this case and manages landscape trees with the consent of the lessor.

According to the evidence Nos. 1, 1-2, and 2-2, the Defendant is recognized to have leased the H 500 square meters of the instant land, which was the owner of the instant land, from March 30, 201 to March 2016. However, the Defendant cannot oppose the Plaintiffs who acquired the ownership of each of the instant land on October 2, 2018 by means of a lease agreement with I and J. Thus, the said defense is without merit without further need to be examined.

Therefore, each claim of the plaintiffs in this case is with merit, and it is so decided as per Disposition by admitting it.

arrow