logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 부산지방법원 2017.06.14 2016나49297
토지인도등
Text

1. The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Defendant.

Purport of claim and appeal

1...

Reasons

1. Determination as to the cause of claim

A. Comprehensively taking account of the respective descriptions of evidence Nos. 1 and 4, evidence Nos. 1 and 2-1 and 2, the Plaintiff may recognize the fact that the Plaintiff completed the registration of ownership transfer on August 24, 2015 on the land listed in the separate sheet No. 1 (hereinafter “instant land”) due to purchase and sale as of May 18, 2015, and the Defendant owns a building listed in the separate sheet No. 2 on the instant land (hereinafter “instant building”).

B. According to the above facts, the defendant is obligated to remove the building of this case on the ground of the land of this case and deliver the land of this case to the plaintiff.

2. Judgment on the defendant's assertion

A. Determination as to the claim of statutory superficies under customary law 1) The Defendant’s assertion is that the Nonparty newly constructed the instant building with the consent of the use of the instant land from B, who is the previous owner of the instant land, and the Defendant purchased the instant building from C, who is the immediately preceding owner of the instant land. Even if the owner of the instant land is changed, there was no special agreement to remove the instant building, and thus, the legal superficies under customary law was acquired as to the instant land. (2) Since the statutory superficies under customary law, even though the land and the building were owned by the same owner, falls under the ownership of the same owner, if the said building or the building belongs to the same owner, and the said owner becomes different due to sale or any other reason, there is no room for the establishment of statutory superficies

(See Supreme Court Decision 90Meu26003 delivered on October 30, 1990). Defendant’s assertion is without merit.

B. As the plaintiff's 1 defendant's assertion of abuse of rights is underway with the auction procedure on the land of this case by the plaintiff's creditor, the local housing association project in the land of this case even if the plaintiff received the land of this case.

arrow