logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 수원지방법원안산지원 2015.02.11 2014가단6398
부속물,유체동산반환및부당이득금
Text

1. All of the plaintiff's claims are dismissed.

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

Reasons

1. The grounds for the plaintiff's claim are as shown in the attached Form.

2. The judgment is based on the following circumstances: (a) the effect of the mortgage on the article attached to the mortgaged real estate and the accessory property (the main sentence of Article 358 of the Civil Act); (b) the evidence submitted by the plaintiff alone alone lacks to recognize that the movable property listed in the separate sheet (hereinafter referred to as the "movables of this case") is owned by the plaintiff; and (c) there is no other evidence to acknowledge it; (d) rather, the movables of this case are not only the physical structure attached to the movable of this case, but also the use, location, the purpose of the building, the form, purpose of use, etc. of the building attached to the movable of this case as well as the physical structure attached to the movable of this case; and (e) the movables of this case are all accessorys attached to the real estate of this case which was the object of auction or attached to the commercial use of this case, and there is no other evidence to recognize it otherwise; and (e) the defendant acquired the ownership of the movable properties of this case as well as the movable property of this case.

As such, (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2009Da15602, Sept. 24, 2009; Supreme Court Decision 92Da43142, Aug. 13, 1993). Thus, the Plaintiff’s assertion premised on the ownership of the Plaintiff’s movable property is without merit without further review.

3. Accordingly, the Plaintiff’s claim is without merit.

arrow