logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 수원지방법원안산지원 2016.03.30 2015가단107014
토지인도
Text

1. The defendant shall be the plaintiff.

A. In the order of each point of indication 1,234 square meters on the ground of Annex 1,234 square meters prior to C in light name, 2,3,4, and 1.

Reasons

1. Judgment on the ground of the Plaintiff’s claim

A. The following facts are acknowledged in full view of Gap evidence Nos. 1, Eul evidence Nos. 2, Gap evidence Nos. 2-1 through 4, the results of the measurement and appraisal commission for appraiser Eul, and the purport of the whole pleadings as a result of the appraisal commission for appraiser E, and there is no counter-proof.

(1) As of November 13, 2014, the Plaintiff acquired ownership by completing the registration of ownership transfer through auction with respect to the land of 1,234 square meters (hereinafter “instant land”) prior to Gwangju Metropolitan City (hereinafter “instant land”).

(2) The Defendant, as a colon of Nonparty F, who was the former owner of the instant land, installed a pipe pipe plastic house 17 square meters in the part on the part above the instant land, which connected each point of the items indicated in the annexed drawing Nos. 1, 2, 3, 4, and 1 on the ground of the instant land, and installed a pipe pipe plastic house 98 square meters in the part where the instant land occurred in the ship connected each point of 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, and 5, in turn, in the same drawing Nos. 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, and 5.

(3) 피고는 이 사건 각 비닐하우스 부지를 포함하여 이 사건 토지 중 별지 도면 표시 11, 12, 6, 7, 30, 29, 28, 9, 10, 3, 4, 1, 11의 각 점을 차례로 연결한 선내 ㉮, ㉯, ㉰, ㉱¹ 부분 합계 179㎡와, 같은 도면 표시 31, 32, 24, 25, 26, 27, 31의 각 점을 차례로 연결한 선내 ㉱² 부분 101㎡(이하 피고가 점유하는 위 ㉮, ㉯, ㉰, ㉱¹, ㉱² 부분을 합하여 ‘이 사건 각 점유 부분’이라고만 한다)를 2012. 1. 1.부터 각 점유하고 사용하고 있다.

(4) The amount equivalent to the monthly rent for each occupation of the instant case possessed by the Defendant is KRW 2,083,200 from November 13, 2014 to November 12, 2015, and is equivalent to KRW 17,450 from November 13, 2015.

B. According to the above facts, the defendant did not prove that the defendant possessed each of the possession areas of this case, and that there was a source of authority to establish each of the plastic houses of this case.

arrow