logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
arrow
(영문) 인천지방법원부천지원 2015.10.22 2014가단48547
토지인도 등
Text

1. The defendant shall be the plaintiff.

A. Of the area of 124 square meters in Seocheon-gu, Seocheon-gu, Seocheon-gu, Seoul, the annexed drawings No. 1, 2, 5, 6, 1.

Reasons

1. Facts of recognition;

A. On October 16, 2003, the Plaintiff completed the registration of ownership transfer with respect to the land of 124 square meters (hereinafter “instant land”) and above-ground buildings in Seocheon-gu, Seocheon-gu, Seocheon-gu, Seoul, and the Defendant completed the registration of ownership transfer with respect to D large 117 square meters and above-ground buildings around April 10, 207.

B. The Defendant established a septic tank in the instant land, owned by the Plaintiff, and occupied and used part A of 1.55 square meters on the ship, which is connected in sequence A, 1, 2, 5, 6, 1 among the instant land (hereinafter “the instant occupied part”).

C. The amount equivalent to the rent for the occupied portion of the instant case is KRW 127,100 per annum as of December 28, 2014.

[Ground of recognition] A without dispute, entry of Gap evidence 1, result of on-site inspection by this court, result of appraiser E’s survey and appraisal, result of appraiser F’s appraisal of rent, purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination

A. According to the above facts of determination as to the cause of the claim, since the part in the possession of this case is on the ground of the land owned by the plaintiff, the defendant is obligated to remove the part in the possession of this case to the plaintiff, deliver the land corresponding thereto, and return for unjust enrichment the profits equivalent to the rent in proportion to KRW 127,100 per annum from April 10, 2007 to the date of removal of the part in the possession of this case and delivery of the above land.

In addition to the above money, the Plaintiff claimed cleaning expenses, usage fees, etc. from the above occupied part of the purification tank, but only the statement in subparagraph 4-3 of the evidence No. 4-3 paid cleaning expenses for the septic tank

It is insufficient to recognize that the amount claimed by the plaintiff will be paid.

B. As to the defendant's assertion and judgment, the defendant can use the part of the possession of this case based on green relations, and the purification tank of the part of the possession of this case argues that the acquisition by prescription for the above part of the land has been completed by installing before before 1994 the house owned by the defendant was constructed.

The argument is presented.

arrow