(영문) 서울중앙지방법원 2017.09.29 2016가단5159589

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) 서울중앙지방법원 2017.09.29 2016가단5159589

건물등철거

Text

1. The plaintiff (Counterclaim defendant)'s main claim is dismissed.

2. The Plaintiff (Counterclaim Defendant) is Seoul.

Reasons

1. Basic facts

A. The Plaintiff purchased Jongno-gu Seoul Jongno-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government large 96.2 square meters (hereinafter “instant land”) and completed the registration of ownership transfer on April 28, 2006.

B. The Defendant completed the registration of ownership transfer on December 9, 1989, on the ground of sale on November 10, 1989, with respect to the housing of 16.5 square meters in Jongno-gu Seoul, Jongno-gu, Seoul, and 0.7 square meters in E, and the two-storys in each of the above lands (hereinafter “instant building”).

C. Of the instant building, part of the second floor is protruding more than the first floor and is in a state of breaking up the part of 3.3 square meters in the ship (hereinafter “the part in possession of this case”) connected with each point of 8,9,10,11,6, and 8 of the attached drawing among the instant land in sequence.

(2) Each appraisal of Gap's evidence Nos. 1 through 5, Eul's evidence Nos. 1 and 5 (including paper numbers; hereinafter the same shall apply) and video, appraiser F, and G, the purport of the whole pleadings.

2. As to the plaintiff's assertion of the parties concerned seeking removal of the building part of this case and delivery of the possessed part of this case as the principal lawsuit, the defendant's dismissal of the plaintiff's principal lawsuit and implementation of the registration procedure for transfer of ownership as to the occupied part of this case as a counterclaim on the ground that the acquisition by prescription has been completed with respect to

3. We also examine the principal lawsuit and counterclaim.

A. In the event that the purchaser’s purchase and possession of the site were commenced by acquiring the site along with the ground building, it is believed that part of the adjoining land belongs to the site he/she acquired by the purchaser, and that it actually occupies a part of the adjoining land, barring any special circumstance, the possession of the adjoining land is also deemed as autonomous possession with the intention of ownership, barring any special circumstance.

Supreme Court Decision 9Da586 delivered on June 25, 1999

유사 판례

-대전지방법원 2014.12.24 2014나103532

-서울중앙지방법원 2015.05.01 2014가단5248874

-서울중앙지방법원 2015.12.08 2015가단5091181

-춘천지방법원 영월지원 2018.08.08 2017가단921

-울산지방법원 2014.10.28 2013가단36339