(영문) 대구지방법원 2020.04.22 2019나6896 | 리걸엔진

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) 대구지방법원 2020.04.22 2019나6896

토지인도청구 등

Text

1. The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Defendant.

Purport of claim and appeal

1..

Reasons

1. In the first instance court’s trial scope, the Plaintiff (designated parties; hereinafter “Plaintiffs”) filed a claim against the Defendant for the collection of trees and delivery of land, ② a claim for return of unjust enrichment equivalent to rent, and also filed a claim against the Defendant and C for compensation equivalent to the cost of restoring the land to its original state.

The first instance court accepted both the Plaintiff’s claim for removal of trees and delivery of land, and the Plaintiff’s claim for return of unjust enrichment equivalent to rent, and dismissed all the Plaintiff’s claim for damages against the Defendant and C.

The judgment of this court is limited to ① the Plaintiff’s claim for removal of trees and delivery of land, ② the claim for unjust enrichment equivalent to rent.

2. Paragraphs (1) and (2) among the reasons of the judgment of the court of first instance, except for the cases to be stated in the reasoning for this case, by the court of first instance as follows:

A. Recognizing that the part of paragraphs (1) and (2) are the same, this shall be quoted in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

3. The third side of the judgment of the court of first instance, the third side of the judgment of the court of first instance, from 14 to 17, shall be completed as follows.

In regard to this, the defendant argued that a clan has title trust the land of this case owned by the plaintiffs, and that the defendant has the right to possess the land of this case by planting trees for the clan and preserving and managing the land of this case. However, even according to the defendant's assertion, the defendant, not the party to a title trust agreement, cannot oppose the exercise of external ownership to the plaintiffs' land of this case which completed the registration of ownership transfer, and it is insufficient to recognize that the defendant was given the right to preserve and manage the land of this case by only the evidence Nos. 1 through 15 submitted by the defendant, in accordance with the legitimate decision-making method of the clan, and otherwise,

참조조문

-민사소송법 제420조

유사 판례

-서울고등법원 2016.12.15 2016나2030591

-수원지방법원성남지원 2019.04.04 2016가단227365

-대전지방법원 홍성지원 2018.12.11 2017가단8418

-광주지방법원 해남지원 2017.03.28 2016가단3642

-춘천지방법원속초지원 2017.05.11 2015가합300416