(영문) 청주지방법원 영동지원 2018.10.05 2018가단3617

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) 청주지방법원 영동지원 2018.10.05 2018가단3617

건물등철거

Text

1. The defendant shall remove the buildings listed in paragraph (2) of the attached list of real estate to the plaintiff, and the land listed in paragraph (1).

Reasons

1. Basic facts

A. The deceased C (hereinafter “the deceased”) is the Plaintiff’s scenario and the Defendant’s Ministry of Foreign Affairs.

B. On April 20, 1973, the Deceased completed the registration of initial ownership relating to the land listed in Paragraph (1) of the Attached List of Real Estate (hereinafter “instant land”). On November 5, 2002, the Plaintiff completed the registration of ownership transfer on the instant land based on the sale on November 4, 2002 (hereinafter “instant sales contract”).

C. Around 1970, the Defendant newly constructed, on the instant land, 49 square meters of cement block structure, among the buildings listed in paragraph (2) of attached Table 2 (hereinafter “instant building”), on the ground of the instant land, and completed registration of preservation of ownership on May 13, 2005.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1, 2, and 4, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The assertion and judgment

A. According to the above facts of recognition as to the cause of the claim, the defendant is obligated to remove the building of this case and deliver the land of this case to the plaintiff, except in extenuating circumstances.

B. 1) The Defendant’s assertion 1) sold the instant land to the Plaintiff without fulfilling his duty to transfer ownership, which was around 1968 by the Defendant’s assertion. The Plaintiff, who was aware of the sale contract on the instant land between the Defendant and the Deceased, was actively involved in the deceased’s breach of trust and entered into the instant sales contract. Therefore, the Plaintiff’s claim should be dismissed inasmuch as the instant sales contract is null and void as it is double selling. 2) The Defendant’s statement as to whether the deceased sold the instant land to the Defendant in light of health, and the witness D’s statement in this court, can be acknowledged that the witness made a statement from the Deceased that he sold the instant land to the Defendant.

However, the defendant is originally entitled to the land of this case from the deceased without compensation.

유사 판례

-대구지방법원 서부지원 2017.01.11 2015가단4034

-창원지방법원진주지원 2019.09.04 2017가단31780

-서울중앙지방법원 2018.10.04 2018가단5051283

-대전지방법원 2019.10.10 2018가단207677

-의정부지방법원 2019.09.19 2018가단25465