(영문) 대전지방법원홍성지원 2015.09.08 2015가단6135

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) 대전지방법원홍성지원 2015.09.08 2015가단6135

건물철거 및 토지인도

Text

1. The Defendant shall keep in turn each point of the Plaintiff’s indication 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, and 1 of the annexed drawings among the 162 square meters of 162 square meters in Hongsung-gun, Chungcheongnam-gun.

Reasons

1. Basic facts

A. The Plaintiff completed the registration of ownership transfer by the Daejeon District Court No. 20348, Aug. 26, 2004 with respect to the land of this case, Hong-gun, Hong-gun, Hongsung-gun (hereinafter “instant land”).

B. A container (referring to 9m, 3m, 2.4m in length, 2.4m in height; hereinafter “instant container”) is installed in the part of the ship (Ga) connected in sequence with each point of the items indicated in the annexed drawing Nos. 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, and 1 on the ground of the instant land. The Defendant is residing in the instant container.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, entries in Gap evidence 1, 2, and 5 (including branch numbers for those with additional numbers) and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The assertion and judgment

A. The owner of the instant container 1) The Plaintiff owned the instant container by installing the instant container without any title on the instant land owned by the Plaintiff. As such, the Defendant is obligated to remove the instant container and deliver the site to the Plaintiff.

B) As the Defendant’s instant container is owned by D, and D was established on the instant land under the contract with the Plaintiff, the Plaintiff’s claim is without merit. (2) According to the Plaintiff’s claim, the Defendant, on July 10, 2015, sent to the Plaintiff a certificate of content that the Plaintiff cannot remove the instant container until the Plaintiff refunds the deposit for lease on the premise that the instant container was owned by D, and the Defendant was residing in the instant container as seen earlier, and the fact that the Defendant was residing in the instant container was added to the fact that the Defendant did not submit any materials proving that D had ownership of the instant container, notwithstanding the name of the court, the instant container is recognized as owned by the Defendant.

B. According to the above facts of recognition as to the removal and request for extradition, the land of this case is owned by the Plaintiff.

유사 판례

-서울고등법원 2018.05.15 2017누76021

-서울동부지방법원 2021.04.20 2020가단146823

-대전지방법원 2014.06.25 2013노3021

-수원지방법원 2014.07.03 2013노4094

-청주지방법원 충주지원 2018.07.19 2017가단24123