(영문) 춘천지방법원 원주지원 2018.03.29 2017가단4187

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) 춘천지방법원 원주지원 2018.03.29 2017가단4187

건물철거 등

Text

1. The defendant shall attach the attached Form among the cement block string housing of cement 757m2 above ground 757m2 in Won-si, Won-si.

Reasons

1. Facts of recognition;

A. The Plaintiff is the owner of B forest land B and 757 square meters (hereinafter “instant land”).

B. Of the instant land, an unregistered building without permission (hereinafter “instant building”) is located on the land that includes the area of 95 square meters in order of 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, and 1 of the attached drawing No. 1, 2, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, and 1 of the instant land.

C. The Defendant did not pay rent or other fee to anyone including the Plaintiff with respect to the possession of the instant building.

[Reasons for Recognition] Unsatisfy, Entry of Evidence A1 to 4, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The assertion and judgment

A. Comprehensively taking account of the above facts and overall circumstances as to the Plaintiff’s claim, the Defendant is determined as the owner of the instant building, barring special circumstances, and the Plaintiff as the owner of the instant land is obligated to remove the said building and deliver the part of the attached drawing “B” to the Plaintiff.

B. The defendant's assertion that the defendant purchased the building of this case from the whole owner of the land of this case around the late 1970s, and increased and reconstructed it until now, and the plaintiff also resided in this case at the time of auction and confirmed the existence of the building at the time of acquiring the land of this case, so the plaintiff's claim is unjust.

On the other hand, there is no evidence supporting the Defendant’s lawful purchase of the instant building from the former owner of the instant land, as alleged by the Defendant.

In addition, since the removal of a building constitutes a final disposition of ownership, in principle, its owner is entitled to dispose of the removal, but a person who is in possession of an unregistered building transferred from the original acquisitor of the ownership, even though he/she did not register the acquisition of ownership, he/she is legally or legally in possession within the scope of his/her right.

유사 판례

-창원지방법원 2019.01.24 2018가합855

-춘천지방법원 원주지원 2018.03.29 2017가단32311

-서울중앙지방법원 2019.04.17 2018가단5164707

-대전지방법원천안지원 2015.09.15 2015가단104011

-서울동부지방법원 2016.06.10 2015나27509