(영문) 의정부지방법원 2017.06.09 2016가단113856

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) 의정부지방법원 2017.06.09 2016가단113856

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. The Plaintiff is an owner of a 1/2 share-E 1/2 of the 1/2 share-based 236 square meters in Namyang-si, Namyang-si (hereinafter “C land”), and the Defendant is the owner of a 1,195 square meters totaling the F (hereinafter “F land”).

(b) The land C and F shall be adjacent as shown in Appendix 1.

C. Among land C, fences are installed on the ground of a part of 30 square meters in “bbb” (hereinafter “the aforementioned part”) connected in order to each point of 2 marks 1 through 9, and 1 of the annexed drawings.

[Ground of recognition] A. A.1-2, 2, 4, and 5; and the result of the appraisal commission to appraiser G by this court; the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Summary of the parties’ assertion

A. The Defendant shall remove the above fence, deliver the above part to the Plaintiff, and ② pay to the Plaintiff the amount of unjust enrichment equivalent to the rent for the land owned by the Plaintiff, including KRW 15,750,000, totaling KRW 16,250,000, and damages for delay due to the damage of the wall owned by the Plaintiff, and KRW 500,000,000, and damages for delay.

B. Defendant 1 had already existed at the time of the purchase of F-owned land by the Defendant; and ② the Defendant removed the facilities installed by the Plaintiff for the purpose of preventing the inundation of the land owned by the Defendant, but there was no fact that the fence owned by the Plaintiff was damaged in order to prevent the inundation of the land owned by the Defendant.

3. Determination

A. With respect to the claim for removal and delivery, the evidence submitted by the plaintiff alone cannot be deemed to be a de facto disposal authority of the above wall, or it is difficult to view that the defendant possessed the above part by installing the above wall, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it, the above wall is installed on the land owned by the plaintiff, and it is not deemed to be a part or accessory of the building owned by the defendant, and it does not appear to be a part or accessory of the building owned by the plaintiff. In addition, in addition, the plaintiff claimed damages against the defendant due to the damage of the wall owned by the defendant, the de facto

유사 판례

-대구지방법원경주지원 2019.09.03 2018가단3161

-인천지방법원 2018.08.07 2017가단204284

-서울중앙지방법원 2016.11.15 2014가단5340725

-의정부지방법원고양지원 2016.04.01 2015가단23904

-대구지방법원상주지원 2019.07.10 2018가단2447