logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 대전지방법원서산지원 2020.08.25 2020가단1495
건물등철거 및 토지인도
Text

1. All of the plaintiff's claims are dismissed.

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

Reasons

1. Comprehensively taking account of the overall purport of the pleadings and arguments in Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 4 and Eul evidence Nos. 1 and 2 (including the branch numbers), the following facts: ① the forest of this case and the 648m2 adjacent thereto (hereinafter “instant site”) are inherited real estate by the defendant; on or before March 15, 1971, the forest of this case was registered as the forest of this case; and on or around September 28, 1995, the registration of the preservation of ownership under the defendant’s name was completed; ② the defendant purchased the forest of this case in this case in each of the above land in each of the above land in each of the above land in each of the above land in each of 30m2 (hereinafter “the instant housing of this case”) and the warehouse (attached Form No. 1 and 3m2; hereinafter “the instant forest of this case”) on or around December 6, 1995; and ③ the defendant may sell the forest of this case in each of the above land in each of the following order.

2. Judgment on the plaintiff's claim

A. According to the facts and evidence in front of the determination as to the removal and delivery request of the annexed drawings 1 and 3 parts, the instant forest and the instant housing and warehouse on the land and the instant site were owned by the Defendant. Since the Defendant sold the instant forest to E on April 19, 2004 and sold the said forest and the instant forest to E on April 19, 2004, the housing and warehouse falling under the annexed drawings 1 and 3 parts among the annexed drawings 1 and the annexed drawings 3 parts among the warehouses are different from the forest and warehouse owner, the instant housing and warehouse can be asserted against the owner of the instant forest as statutory superficies under the customary law.

Therefore, it is sought to remove the housing and warehouse of this case with statutory superficies under customary law.

arrow