logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 부산지방법원 2017.10.18 2016나9244
토지인도
Text

1. The part of the judgment of the first instance against the Defendant-Counterclaim Plaintiff shall be revoked;

2. The plaintiff (Counterclaim defendant).

Reasons

1. Determination as to the main claim

A. The Plaintiff is the owner who completed the registration of ownership transfer with respect to the instant land on September 25, 1987. 2) The Defendant completed the registration of ownership transfer on the ground of “sale on October 5, 1973, 1973, on the land adjacent to the instant land by Busan-gun, Busan-gun (hereinafter “instant adjacent land”).

3) The Defendant is a building located on the ground of the adjoining land of this case (hereinafter “the adjoining building of this case”).

The owner of the building is located on the ground of this case. [The facts that there is no dispute over the basis of recognition, Gap evidence No. 1, Eul evidence No. 1, Eul evidence No. 1, the result of surveying and appraisal conducted by the court of first instance on the Korea Cadastral Corporation, and the purport of all pleadings.]

B. According to the facts of the above recognition, the defendant, barring special circumstances, has the duty to remove the parts of the adjacent building on the ground of the land of the instant flooded land, deliver the land of the instant flooded land to the plaintiff, and return unjust enrichment equivalent to the rent.

(However, a separate claim for eviction against the owner of a building who is obligated to remove and deliver the building is not allowed, and thus the plaintiff's claim for eviction is not accepted). 2. Determination as to the defendant's defense and counterclaim

A. The Defendant asserted that the Defendant purchased the land adjacent to the instant case and the building adjacent to the instant case from the former owner, and for twenty (20) years thereafter, occupied the instant erosion land as the site for the instant adjacent building. As such, the prescriptive acquisition for the instant erosion land was completed.

Therefore, the defendant does not have the duty to respond to the plaintiff's principal claim. Rather, the plaintiff is obligated to implement the procedure for the transfer of ownership based on the completion of the prescriptive acquisition of the land in this case.

(b)in the event that the buyer purchases or acquires the site together with the above-ground building and initiates possession, the buyer is in accordance with the adjacent land;

arrow