logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 전주지방법원 2015.12.16 2014나11904
수목인도
Text

1. The plaintiff's claim changed in the trial is dismissed.

2. The costs of the lawsuit after the appeal shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

Reasons

1. The reasons why the court should explain this part of the basic facts are the same as the corresponding part of the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance, and thus, they are cited by the text of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

2. The assertion and judgment

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion 1) H and E agreed on September 2, 1993 to the ownership of the pine trees planted on the 19 parcel of land including Jeon-gun U.S., and thus, the Defendants, the co-inheritors of F, who succeeded to the sole inheritance of E, have the duty to deliver H the pine trees planted on the said 19 parcel of land in accordance with the said agreement on September 2, 1993. 2) The Plaintiff purchased 370 pieces of pine trees planted on the land of this case from H’s agent G on June 4, 201, who purchased 370 pieces of pine trees planted on the land of this case from H, on behalf of H, in subrogation of the Defendants.

B. According to the records of Gap evidence No. 1, it is recognized that the plaintiff purchased 370 pine trees, which were planted on the land of this case from H's agent G on June 4, 2001, from H's agent G.

However, it is not sufficient to recognize that the testimony of Gap evidence 3 and 5 (including the number number) and witness V of the trial party is an agreement that Eul would deliver pine trees planted on the ground of each of the real estate of this case to H on September 2, 1993, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it.

Of the evidence No. 3, even in accordance with the entry of Paragraph 3, etc. of the agreement of September 2, 1993 among the evidence No. 3, the pine trees agreed to own as H is located within the land jointly owned by H and E. According to the agreement of H and E on September 13, 1989 among the evidence Nos. 3 and 6 No. 3 of this case, the land Nos. 3 and 6 of this case appears to be owned by H independently.

12 Real estate does not mean real estate that H and E agree to “share” and even if H and E agree to own trees planted in real estate owned by H, E in such agreement.

arrow