(영문) 대전지방법원 천안지원 2018.04.04 2017가단8247

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) 대전지방법원 천안지원 2018.04.04 2017가단8247

건물인도 등

Text

1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

Reasons

1. Basic facts

A. On April 24, 1987, the Plaintiff: (a) on April 24, 1987, the land ownership transfer process; and (b) on April 24, 1987, the Plaintiff is 2,651 square meters of C orchard in Seo-gu,

(2) Of the shares in the Plaintiff’s name, the shares in the instant land were transferred to D on December 28, 1987, and the remaining 364/661 shares were transferred to E on February 29, 1988.

B. At the time of May 28, 1987, the Plaintiff obtained a construction permit that newly constructs a brick structure detached house of 127.35 square meters on the ground of the instant land by designating the Plaintiff as the owner from the competent authority as the owner of the building.

C. Completion of the house and the Defendant’s possession 1) On the ground of the instant land, the house listed in the attached list (hereinafter “instant house”).

(2) The defendant currently occupies the house of this case. However, the register for the house of this case has not been prepared.

【Reasons for Recognition】 The descriptions of evidence Nos. 3 and 4, and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination on the cause of the claim

A. The Plaintiff asserted that the Plaintiff completed the instant house upon obtaining a construction permit for the construction of the instant house on the ground of the instant land, thereby acquiring the ownership of the instant house on the original condition.

However, on February 29, 198, E, after the Plaintiff’s school, completed the registration of ownership transfer with respect to the portion under the Plaintiff’s name of 364/661 on the instant land without permission, and on February 20, 1989, the Defendant sold the instant land to the Defendant with the share of 364/661 on the instant land and the instant house, thereby occupying the instant housing.

Therefore, since the Defendant did not have the right to occupy the instant house, it is obligated to deliver the instant house to the Plaintiff, the owner of the instant house, and to pay the money calculated by the ratio of KRW 300,000 per month to the unjust enrichment from February 20, 1989 to the completion date of delivery of the instant house.

B. First of all, determination 1.

유사 판례

-서울중앙지방법원 2017.01.18 2016가단5113

-의정부지방법원 2015.06.12 2014가단109242

-수원지방법원 2017.10.31 2017구합63635

-서울중앙지방법원 2016.09.28 2015가단5294300

-제주지방법원 2020.11.10 2020가단58597