(영문) 제주지방법원 2017.10.17 2017가단3689

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) 제주지방법원 2017.10.17 2017가단3689

건물철거등

Text

1. The defendant has each point of 25, 19, 11, 20 or 25 of the annexed drawings among the area of 934 square meters in Jeju-si D prior to Jeju-si.

Reasons

1. Basic facts

A. On December 2, 2014, the Plaintiffs completed the registration of ownership transfer with respect to each of 1/2 shares of D, 934 square meters (hereinafter “instant land”).

B. The Defendant is an owner of the E warehouse site of 509 square meters adjacent to the instant land, and owns the blue string roof (hereinafter “instant warehouse”) on the ground. A part of the warehouse of this case among the warehouse of this case connects each of the items of the (B) and 103 square meters (hereinafter “instant dispute”) in sequence among the instant land, the part of the warehouse of this case (b) is referred to as “the instant dispute site”; and the part of the warehouse constructed on the ground of the instant dispute over the instant land is constructed by breaking up the said part (hereinafter “instant dispute building”).

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, entry of Gap evidence 1-1, 2, and 3-1, and the purport of the whole pleadings as a result of the commission of appraisal to the Jeju branch office of the Korea Land Information Corporation

2. According to the above facts of determination as to the cause of the claim, the defendant who owned the building of this case and occupied the site of this case, which is the site of this case, is obligated to remove the building of this case as the owner of the land of this case and deliver the land of this case to the plaintiffs seeking removal of interference and delivery, unless there are special circumstances.

3. The defendant's assertion is alleged to the purport that the defendant purchased the dispute of this case from F 30 years prior to the purchase of the dispute of this case from F, and thus the defendant has the right to possess the dispute of this case. Thus, since there is no evidence to acknowledge that the defendant purchased the dispute of this case from F, the defendant's above assertion cannot be accepted.

4. Conclusion, the plaintiffs' claim of this case is justified and acceptable.

유사 판례

-제주지방법원 2017.07.18 2016가단11843

-제주지방법원 2018.01.23 2017가단1065

-제주지방법원 2017.10.17 2017가단5616

-제주지방법원 2015.10.07 2015구합5164

-창원지방법원 2011.11.03 2010나14050