(영문) 창원지방법원밀양지원 2014.05.14 2013가단1046

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) 창원지방법원밀양지원 2014.05.14 2013가단1046

감나무발취 수거 등 청구

Text

1. The plaintiffs' claims are dismissed.

2. The costs of lawsuit are assessed against the plaintiffs.

Reasons

1. Facts of recognition;

A. G, H, Defendant C, Defendant C, Selection, J, K, L, M, N, andO were succeeded to the shares of G on August 31, 2004, after G died on August 31, 2004, G was succeeded to the instant land and its ground reduction trees, and H, Defendant C, Selection, J, K, L, M, N, N, andO inherited the shares of H on October 6, 2008 and H, P, Q, M, M,V, M, N, and M were succeeded to the shares of H on the instant land and its ground reduction trees.

B. The Plaintiffs: (a) purchased ownership on February 22, 2013, at the compulsory auction procedure with respect to two-one-one share of the instant land and 180 shares of C on the instant land and its ground trees; and (b) acquired ownership.

[Ground of recognition] Unsatisfy, entry of Gap evidence No. 1, purport of whole pleadings

2. In order to preserve the instant land as one of the co-owners of the instant land, the Plaintiffs seek to gather a total of 180 grassium trees planted on the ground of the instant land to the Defendant and the designated parties.

The facts that the plaintiffs, the plaintiffs, the defendant, and the designated parties share 180 gs of the land of this case and 180 gs of the land of this case for each share are recognized as above. Since the defendant and the designated parties hold shares in the above 180 gs of trees, they cannot be viewed as exclusively using and making profits from the land of this case, they cannot seek a withdrawal as an act of preserving common properties by the same co-owner, and unlike others, the plaintiffs who own 21 gs of shares in the land of this case and 180 gs of the land of this case for each share, are not entitled to seek a withdrawal of the above gs of trees for the defendant and the designated parties who own the above land of this case for each share. Thus, the plaintiffs' claim is without merit.

Therefore, the plaintiffs' claim is dismissed as it is without merit, and it is so decided as per Disposition.

유사 판례

-창원지방법원 2014.12.24 2014나6071

-대구지방법원서부지원 2016.08.25 2015가단37270

-광주지방법원 2018.06.20 2017가단10904

-대구지방법원 2018.07.25 2018나235

-수원지방법원 2018.10.12 2016가단45102