logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 울산지방법원 2018.01.12 2017가단56348
건물등철거
Text

1. The Defendants are to the Plaintiff:

(a) remove the buildings indicated in the description of the section of the building to be removed;

(b) annex.

Reasons

1. In full view of Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 5, the result of the appraisal commission with regard to appraiser D, and the purport of the entire pleadings, the plaintiff is the owner of the forest E- 174 square meters in Ulsan-gun, Ulsan-gun, Ulsan-gun, Ulsan-gun, a neighboring state-owned land. The defendants are those who possess an unauthorized building on the ground of 112 square meters in succession, which is adjacent to the above land, and some of the above buildings are 2 square meters in attached appraisal report Nos. 8, 9, 10, 11, 11, 12, 13, and 8; and the defendants are 6, 7, 8, 13, 12, 14, 15, 16, 17, and 32 square meters in line with the above appraisal report No. 31 square meters in the ship.

Therefore, the defendants are in possession of part of the land owned by the plaintiff without any legal cause. Thus, unless there are special circumstances, the defendants have a duty to remove the part of the land owned by the plaintiff, and deliver the part to the plaintiff"(s) and (c)"(s).

2. The Defendants asserted that the Defendants’ assertion against the Defendants had removed all the parts of the building in which the Plaintiff’s land was infringed. However, there is no evidence to acknowledge this.

(B) The Defendants asserted that the removal of the building constitutes an abuse of rights by reason of the fact that the parts possessed by the Defendants were extremely small and low in size to confirm the parts possessed by the Defendants.

However, it is difficult to regard the plaintiff's claim as an abuse of rights because the part of which the plaintiff's land is invaded is not the case where considerable expenses are required to remove the building itself on the roof of the building or the removal of the building itself.

Therefore, the defendant's argument is without merit.

3. The plaintiff's claim is accepted on the grounds of its reasoning.

arrow