logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 서울남부지방법원 2019.07.25 2018나3187
가건물철거 및 토지인도 등
Text

1. The part of the Defendant (Counterclaim Plaintiff)’s appeal and the ancillary claim for the Defendant (Counterclaim Plaintiff)’s counterclaim added by this court.

Reasons

1. The reasoning for the court’s explanation of this case is as follows, except for the modification of part of the judgment of the court of first instance as follows, and thus, this case is cited by the main text of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act (excluding the part of the judgment of the court of first instance).

The defendant's counterclaim claim shall be amended to "the defendant's main claim for counterclaim" in four pages, one and two of the judgment of the first instance.

The following shall be added to 5 pages 19 of the judgment of the first instance:

A person shall be appointed.

C. (1) On the Defendant’s conjunctive claim, I acquired by prescription on July 11, 2008 as to the part of (a) of the instant land among the instant land, and as I died on July 20, 2013, N and N (N, etc.) (hereinafter “N, etc.”) as his heir died on July 20, 2013.

(2) The plaintiff succeeded to I. The plaintiff is obligated to implement the procedure for the transfer registration of ownership on July 11, 2008 with respect to the part (a) of the land in this case to N, etc., the heir of I. The defendant has the right to claim the transfer registration of ownership on the part (a) of the land in this case to N, etc., and the defendant has the right to claim the transfer registration on July 11, 2008, in subrogation of N, etc. for preserving the above defendant's right to claim, the plaintiff shall seek implementation of the procedure for the transfer registration of ownership on July 11, 2008 with respect to each part of (a) of the land in this case to N, etc., the former owner of D building, and N, etc., the plaintiff's owner of the land in this case without any legal requirements, in view of the nature at the time of commencing possession of the part (a) of this case. Thus, it is reasonable to deem that the defendant occupied the part of the land in this case as possession without any special circumstances.

arrow