logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 서울중앙지방법원 2016.08.16 2015가단5218757
간판철거
Text

1. The instant lawsuit shall be dismissed.

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

Reasons

1. Facts of recognition;

A. The plaintiff is a church, an unincorporated association, which is an aggregate building, and the ownership transfer registration has been completed as a sectional owner under subparagraph 01 of the first floor among F, which is a building of the 15th floor above the ground (the 15th floor above the ground, the 3rd floor below the ground), which is an aggregate building. The defendant B is a sectional owner under subparagraph 104 of the 1st floor above the above building with his spouse G, and the defendant C is a lessee under subparagraphs 102 and 103 of the 1st floor above the above building.

B. Defendant B is running a restaurant business with the trade name “I” as referred to in the above 104, and Defendant C is running a restaurant business with the name of “I” in the above 102 and 103. As to the outer wall of the above building, Defendant B attached table Nos. 1, 2, 3, 4, and 1 and the same drawings Nos. 1, 1, 2, 3, 4, and 1 and 5, 6, 7, 8, and 5, the part of the ship connecting each point in sequence Nos. 2, 1, 2, 3, 4 and 103, and Defendant C affixed a signboard in sequence with each point.

[Ground of Recognition] Facts without dispute, entry and video of Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 4, 10 (including paper numbers) and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the lawsuit of this case is lawful

A. The plaintiff's assertion is a sectional owner No. 101 of the above aggregate building, and the defendants installed a signboard in the section for common use of the above aggregate building without any authority. The plaintiff who is a co-owner of the above section for common use is a preservation act and seeks removal of each of the above signboards against the defendants.

B. We examine ex officio the legality of the instant lawsuit.

The provisions of Article 265 of the Civil Act concerning the preservation of property jointly owned cannot be applied to the preservation of property jointly owned. Barring any special circumstance, a resolution of the general meeting shall be passed pursuant to Article 276(1) of the Civil Act, barring any special circumstance. Thus, even in a case where a lawsuit is filed as an act of preservation, unless

arrow