logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 창원지방법원 2014.12.24 2014나6071
감나무발취 수거 등 청구
Text

1. All appeals filed by the plaintiffs are dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal are assessed against the Plaintiffs.

The purport of the claim and appeal is the purport of the appeal.

Reasons

1. Basic facts

A. The Defendant and the designated parties owned 1,041 square meters prior to D, E, 2,023 square meters prior to D (hereinafter “instant land”) and 180 glue trees on its ground.

B. On February 22, 2013, the Plaintiffs sold 1/21 shares of the Defendant’s 2/21 shares of the instant land in the compulsory auction procedure for the compulsory auction ( Changwon District Court X), respectively.

(In the absence of dispute, entry of Gap's No. 1 and purport of whole pleading)

2. Since the legal superficies under the customary law is not established with respect to the total of 180 gall trees owned by the Defendant and the designated parties planted on the ground of the instant land alleged by the Plaintiffs, the Plaintiffs seek that the Defendant and the designated parties take 180 gall trees to preserve the instant land as the right holder of each of the 1/21 of the instant land.

3. Determination

A. As to the claim against the Defendant, the Defendant owned 2/21 shares out of the land of this case and 180 gye trees 180 gye, and the fact that the Plaintiffs acquired the ownership of the above land in the compulsory auction procedure with respect to the shares of the Defendant among the land of this case is as seen above.

Unless there are special circumstances, the unregistered trees owned by the debtor who is living on the land subject to auction are deemed part of the land as a constituent part of the land (Supreme Court Order 98Ma1817, Oct. 28, 1998). Thus, the plaintiffs are deemed to have acquired the ownership of the defendant's share among 180 grae trees on the land of this case during the above compulsory auction procedure.

Therefore, the plaintiffs' claim for taking trees against the defendant who did not have any right to the instant trees is without merit.

B. The remaining designated parties except the Defendant (hereinafter the designated parties) occupy and use the instant land as co-owners in the capacity of co-owners of the instant land, with the exception of the Defendant’s remaining designated parties (excluding the Defendant).

arrow