logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 청주지방법원 영동지원 2018.10.19 2017가단4729
건물등철거
Text

1. The defendant shall remove the building indicated in attached Table 2 to the plaintiff, and the land indicated in attached Table 1 to the plaintiff.

Reasons

1. Basic facts

A. On April 8, 1975, the Plaintiff completed the registration of ownership transfer with respect to the land listed in attached Table 1 (hereinafter “instant land”).

B. As to the building listed in attached Table 2 (hereinafter “instant building”), C completed the registration of ownership preservation on May 25, 1994, and D completed the registration of ownership transfer on November 8, 2016 due to inheritance. The Defendant completed the registration of ownership transfer on May 30, 2017.

C. D filed a lawsuit against the Plaintiff on August 27, 2001 with respect to the instant land at Youngju District Court Young-dong Branch, seeking the implementation of the procedure for ownership transfer registration on the ground of the completion of prescriptive acquisition on August 27, 2001. However, the said court rendered a judgment dismissing D’s claim on the ground that the possession of the instant land by C and D is recognized as a principal possession (270,000 won or KRW 350,000,000 to the Plaintiff on July 21, 2017, each year from November 27, 1995 to December 14, 2005) and the said judgment became final and conclusive as it is.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, entry of Gap evidence 1 to 3, purport of the whole pleadings

2. The assertion and judgment

A. According to the above facts of recognition as to the cause of the claim, the defendant is obligated to remove the building of this case and deliver the land of this case to the plaintiff, except in extenuating circumstances.

B. The Defendant’s assertion 1) The instant building was newly constructed by E, the owner of the instant land before the Plaintiff, and C purchased the instant building from E.

Therefore, C acquired legal superficies under the customary law for the ownership of the instant building, and the Defendant succeeded to the legal superficies under the said customary law.

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim should be dismissed.

B. C On May 25, 1994, the registration of initial ownership of the instant building was made.

arrow