(영문) 전주지방법원정읍지원 2016.07.12 2015가단1640

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) 전주지방법원정읍지원 2016.07.12 2015가단1640

건물철거 및 토지인도

Text

1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

Reasons

1. Basic facts

A. On August 26, 1983, the Defendant completed the registration of ownership transfer under the name of the Defendant, on the grounds of sale and purchase with respect to DJ 749 square meters (hereinafter “instant land before the instant partition”).

B. On November 26, 1991, E sold the land before the instant partition to F on March 10, 1995 after completing the registration of ownership transfer under the name of E on the ground of a successful bid, and thereafter, the registration of ownership transfer under the name G and H was completed on the land before the instant partition.

C. On February 25, 2013, in the instant land before the instant partition, the area was divided into 570 square meters (hereinafter “instant land”). D.

On April 3, 2013, the Plaintiff purchased the instant land from H that was the owner at that time and completed the registration of ownership transfer in the name of the Plaintiff under the name of Jeonju District Court, 5829 received on April 17, 2013.

E. The Defendant owns 94 square meters of the instant land, on the ground of the indication of the attached drawing(a) in the attached Form among the instant land, the panel sloping roof single-story housing (hereinafter “instant building”).

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1, Eul evidence Nos. 1 and 2, and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The parties' assertion

A. The plaintiff's assertion that the defendant owned the building of this case on the ground of the land of this case without any title and obstructed the plaintiff's exercise of ownership as to the land of this case. Thus, the plaintiff is obligated to remove the building of this case and deliver the land of this case to

B. Since legal superficies on the instant building asserted by the Defendant was established, the Plaintiff’s claim is unreasonable.

3. According to the facts acknowledged earlier, the Plaintiff is the owner of the instant land as of the date of the closing of argument, and the Defendant possessed the instant land as the owner of the instant building.

However, in full view of the contents of evidence Nos. 1, 2, and 3 as a whole, the defendant around 1983.

유사 판례

-광주지방법원 2018.08.09 2017가합58767

-전주지방법원 2017.10.12 2015구합1882

-전주지방법원정읍지원 2019.01.22 2016가단3957

-전주지방법원 2018.12.05 2016가단13026

-전주지방법원정읍지원 2016.10.11 2015가단11357