logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 의정부지방법원 2017.01.25 2015가단123900
건물철거등
Text

1. The plaintiff's primary claim and the conjunctive claim are all dismissed.

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

Reasons

1. Basic facts

A. On April 22, 2002, the Plaintiff’s husband and wife C and the Defendant’s son and wife D were living as a legally married couple after the marriage report was completed, and on February 26, 2015, the Plaintiff filed an application for confirmation of the intention of divorce with the Jung-gu District Court for confirmation of the intention of divorce on June 15, 2015.

B. Meanwhile, from around 1982 to September 1994, the Defendant constructed the housing indicated in paragraph (2) of the attached Table No. 2, the stable listed in paragraph (3) of the attached Table No. 3 (hereinafter collectively referred to as the “each building of this case”) on the land indicated in paragraph (1) of the attached Table No. 1 of the wife E’s name (hereinafter referred to as the “instant land”). However, the registration of preservation of ownership was completed in the name of E only for the above factory building.

C. After that, the registration of ownership transfer was completed on April 30, 2001, for the land of this case and the factory buildings above, on April 12, 2001 as a result of the voluntary auction procedure. The registration of ownership transfer was completed on May 4, 2001 in G, which is the Plaintiff’s seat, due to the sale as of May 2, 2001, and the registration of ownership transfer was completed on November 29, 2006 in the future of the Plaintiff on November 28, 2006.

On the other hand, from November 191, 1991, the defendant has been living in each building of this case together with E.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1, 2, 3, 11, 14, 15, 16, Eul evidence Nos. 1, 7 and 8, and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Judgment as to the main claim

A. The gist of the Plaintiff’s assertion was not only at the time when G originally purchased the instant land and the instant factory building from F from F, but also at the time when the Plaintiff purchased it from G, each of the instant buildings, which were unregistered, was included in the subject matter of the sale. Accordingly, the Defendant was able to enter into a loan agreement on each of the instant buildings between G and the Plaintiff, thereby free of charge, and reside therein.

Accordingly, the Plaintiff is the Plaintiff.

arrow