(영문) 대전지방법원서산지원 2015.05.12 2014가단9535

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) 대전지방법원서산지원 2015.05.12 2014가단9535

건물인도 등

Text

1. The plaintiff's main claim is dismissed.

2. The Defendant is on the ground of C river of 640 square meters in Chungcheongnam-do, Chungcheongnam-do, Chungcheongnam-do.

Reasons

1. Facts of recognition;

A. The Plaintiff’s Non-Party D, as the owner of the C river 640 square meters (hereinafter “instant land”) in Chungcheongnam-do, Chungcheongnam-do, Chungcheongnam-do, the part of item (a) of the attached Table No. 11, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 22, 23, 10, and 11 attached hereto connected each point of the said land, which is located on the said land, is located on the part of the non-party D’s non-party 1, which connects each point of which, in sequence, 11, 13, 14, 15, 17, 18, 18, 19, 20, 21, 23, 10, and 8, 24, 26, 27, 29, 29, 7, and 53 square meters without permission (hereinafter “each building”).

B. On July 15, 2014, the Plaintiff completed the registration of ownership transfer on the instant land.

C. The Defendant currently occupies and uses the instant land and buildings.

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

2. Determination

A. As to the primary claim, the Plaintiff sought the delivery of the instant building to the Defendant on the premise that the instant building is owned by the Plaintiff, but it is insufficient to recognize it even if considering all the evidence submitted by the Plaintiff as to the fact that the Plaintiff is the owner of the instant building. There is no

Therefore, this part of the claim is not accepted.

B. According to the above facts as to the conjunctive claim, the Defendant is obligated to remove the instant building and deliver the instant land to the Plaintiff, the owner of the instant land, except in extenuating circumstances.

The Defendant: (a) donated the instant building to Nonparty E; (b) sold it to Nonparty F; and (c) sold it to the Defendant; (b) the Defendant asserted to the effect that the Defendant is the owner of the instant building; (c) however, even if the Defendant is the owner of the instant building, he/she cannot oppose the Plaintiff’s claim for removal of the instant building because it was a legitimate title to possess the instant land against the Plaintiff.

Therefore, the defendant's assertion is accepted.

유사 판례

-대전지방법원홍성지원 2015.01.28 2014가단154

-대전지방법원 2016.01.12 2015나101175

-대전지방법원 2016.02.05 2015나5468

-대전지방법원서산지원 2014.10.22 2014가단4035

-의정부지방법원 2016.08.30 2016가단7609