logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 제주지방법원 2016.08.04 2015가단54126
토지인도
Text

1. All of the plaintiffs' claims are dismissed.

2. The costs of lawsuit are assessed against the plaintiffs.

Reasons

The Plaintiffs, on May 26, 2009, purchased each land listed in the separate sheet (hereinafter “each land of this case”) and completed the registration of ownership transfer on June 24, 2009.

However, among each land of this case, there is a road (hereinafter “road of this case”) installed by the Defendant on the part (D) of a ship, which connects each point of 30, 32, 33, 34, 35, 5, 6, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40, 41, 42, 42, 49, and 30 in sequence, which connects each point of (b) the section (b) 185 square meters and the section (b) 8, 9, 46, 45, 44, 43, and 8 square meters in sequence.

[Ground of recognition] A without dispute, entry of evidence No. 1, and the result of this court’s request for surveying and appraisal of the branch offices of the Korea Land Information Corporation, according to the above-mentioned facts of determination as to the ground for claim of the entire purport of pleadings, the Defendant is obliged to remove the above road and deliver the above land to the Plaintiff, barring special circumstances.

The summary of the defendant's defense of defense was the construction of the road of this case and possession of the above land in peace and public performance for about 40 years.

Therefore, since the acquisition by prescription for the above road portion has been completed, the defendant does not have the duty to deliver the above part of land.

The Plaintiff’s seeking removal of the above roads and delivery of land constitutes abuse of rights and thus cannot claim removal of the above roads and delivery of land.

In the absence of any data to verify the time when the Defendant opened a road on the instant land, the course and reason for opening the road, etc., the period during which the Defendant occupied the said land cannot be known.

Therefore, it cannot be confirmed whether the defendant's possession is the possession frequently, and whether it was peace and public performance.

Pursuant to Article 197(1) of the Civil Code, an occupant is presumed to have occupied in good faith, peace, and public performance with his/her own will, but the period of possession, which is the premise thereof, is presumed.

arrow