(영문) 서울동부지방법원 2019.01.11 2018가단13630

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) 서울동부지방법원 2019.01.11 2018가단13630

공작물철거 등

Text

1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

Reasons

1. Determination as to the cause of claim

A. The Plaintiff asserted that the Plaintiff installed a retaining wall (hereinafter “the retaining wall of this case”) on the ground of 31 square meters on the part of the ship (C) where the Plaintiff, Gangdong-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government 2,260 square meters and D forest and 3,258 square meters (hereinafter “the instant land”) and the owner of the building E on the ground, and the Plaintiff and the G principal of the F Religious Organizations G principal, the Defendant’s representative, in sequence, connects each point of 1,2,3,4, and 1 on the ground of the instant land. The Defendant asserts that the retaining wall of this case was removed to the Plaintiff and that the Plaintiff is obligated to deliver the relevant land.

As to this, the Defendant’s retaining wall of this case was installed on 2014, which was before the Defendant moved to a F Religious Organization Gridge, for securing an access road to a church at the time of constructing a new church building, and did not establish or possess the Defendant’s individual; and the above retaining wall is not located in the Plaintiff’s land.

B. Determination of the retaining wall of this case was installed by the General Assembly of F Religious Organizations in order to secure access roads at the time of new construction of a church building on the ground of Gangdong-gu Seoul, and the defendant, thereafter, can be recognized by the parties or considering the whole purport of arguments as to the entries in the evidence Nos. 1 and 2, and thus, the defendant installed the retaining wall of this case by an individual, if so, the defendant installed the retaining wall of this case.

The Plaintiff’s claim of this case against the Defendant is difficult to accept because it is difficult to view it as currently possessing or currently occupying it.

2. Conclusion, the plaintiff's claim of this case is dismissed as it is without merit.

유사 판례

-서울중앙지방법원 2017.10.12 2015가단5361507

-서울중앙지방법원 2018.04.05 2017나75653

-청주지방법원 영동지원 2015.07.16 2015고단84

-대전지방법원 2017.04.12 2016가단203442

-서울고등법원 2020.12.18 2020누46730