(영문) 대구지방법원 2016.08.25 2016나1944 | 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) 대구지방법원 2016.08.25 2016나1944

토지인도 등

Text

1.The judgment of the first instance shall be modified as follows:

The defendant shall pay to the plaintiff KRW 6,412,965 as well as to the plaintiff on June 4, 2014.

Reasons

1. Basic facts

A. The instant land was owned by the network D. The deceased on November 26, 1976, and children, including the Plaintiff, jointly inherited the instant land.

Inheritance shares are 9/24 shares, E and F shares, 4/24 shares, and G 7/24 shares.

B. On April 2, 2014, the Defendant is a co-owner who acquired shares in the aggregate of 8/24 shares in E and F among the instant land, and 7/24 shares in G on February 10, 2015, respectively, and has 15/24 shares in the instant land.

C. On September 2, 2015, the Defendant filed a lawsuit against the Plaintiff for partition of co-owned property in Daegu District Court Branch 2015Kadan1848, and on September 2, 2015, the instant case became final and conclusive as a substitute for conciliation with the purport that “The remainder after deducting the auction cost from the proceeds sold by auction shall be distributed to the Defendant at the rate of 15/24 and 9/24, respectively, to the Plaintiff.”

The instant land was sold to I at the auction procedure for dividing the jointly owned property (Tgu District Court Port Branch H), and the sale price was paid in full on March 17, 2016, and the ownership transfer registration was made to I on April 4, 2016.

E. The Defendant currently occupies and uses the land occupied by the Defendant among the instant land.

[Ground of recognition] A without dispute, significant facts in this court, Gap evidence Nos. 1, 2, Eul evidence Nos. 11 through 15, the result of on-site verification by the court of first instance, the result of the survey and appraisal by the court of first instance and the purport of whole pleadings

2. The Plaintiff, as co-owner of the instant land, asserts that the Defendant occupied and used without prior consent from the Plaintiff, the part of the instant land occupied by the Defendant without permission, and sought the delivery of the land occupied by the Defendant.

However, as seen earlier, I received the sale of the instant land, the Plaintiff’s claim for delivery premised on the premise that the Plaintiff is a co-owner of the instant land is without merit.

3. Determination on the claim for return of unjust enrichment

A. The plaintiff's assertion.

유사 판례

-대구지방법원포항지원 2016.01.12 2014가단4451

-수원지방법원평택지원 2016.04.27 2015가단46510

-부산지방법원 2017.10.18 2016나43541

-수원지방법원평택지원 2017.05.11 2015가단46862

-인천지방법원 부천지원 2018.10.02 2018가단108157