logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 의정부지방법원 2018.07.13 2018나203204
건물등철거
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. The reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance concerning this case is that the "building No. 18" is used as "building No. 1 of this case" among the grounds of the judgment of the court of first instance, and the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance is same as that of the judgment of the court of first instance, except for adding the judgment under paragraph (2) below to the defendant's new assertion, thereby citing it as it is in accordance with the main sentence of Article

2. The portion to be determined additionally

A. The Defendant asserts that the statutory superficies for the instant building 2 ought to be recognized, since the instant building was newly constructed with the consent of the Pacific Livestock Cooperatives, a mortgagee of the right to collateral security in early 2013.

B. Determination 1) First of all, we examine whether the Pakistan Livestock Cooperatives consented to the new construction of the second building. According to the evidence evidence Nos. 1, 1, 2, and 3, it is acknowledged that on December 21, 2012, the Pakistan Livestock Cooperatives established the right to collateral security and superficies on the instant land consented to the Defendant’s project to implement the instant land on or around September 2013. However, according to the evidence Nos. 1, 2, and 3, the Defendant’s business plan approved from the Pakistan Livestock Cooperatives was not the new construction of the instant building, but it was recognized that the Plaintiff was a person holding the right to collateral security on the instant land and used two neighboring lots as the site and site of the existing building. Thus, there is insufficient evidence to acknowledge that the Defendants consented to the new construction of the instant building on or around September 21, 2013, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge that the Defendants Livestock Cooperatives consented to the new construction of the instant land as a person holding the right to collateral security.

arrow