logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 서울남부지방법원 2020.08.28 2019나3061
토지인도 등
Text

The part against Defendant B among the judgment of the first instance is revoked, and all of the plaintiff's claims corresponding to the revocation part are revoked.

Reasons

1. The gist of the Plaintiff’s assertion is the owner of Gangseo-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government 66㎡ (hereinafter “instant land”).

Defendant B (hereinafter “Defendant church”) committed a part of the instant land, which is indicated in the separate drawing (hereinafter “BB”) and illegally occupied by installing a fence and entrance, and Defendant Cridge (hereinafter “Defendant church”) committed a part of the instant land, which is indicated in the separate drawing (hereinafter “CC”) to construct a building and use it as a church, and illegally occupied the relevant part while using it as a church. Defendant D (hereinafter “Defendant D”) committed a crime against the part of the instant land, which is indicated in the separate drawing (hereinafter “CC”) of the instant land, and constructed a house in violation of the “Div” portion of the instant land, which is indicated in the separate drawing, and illegally occupied the relevant part.

The Defendants are obligated to sell the portion of “A” out of the instant land to a third party (excluding small G and H) and pay the amount of unjust enrichment of KRW 190,475,75 each month from March 30, 202, from the following day after the Plaintiff acquired the ownership of the instant land, to a third party (excluding small G and H) of Gangseo-gu Seoul, Seoul, the ownership of which was adjacent to the portion of “I” among the instant land and to pay the amount of unjust enrichment of KRW 70,00,000,000,000 from December 29, 1996 to March 30, 20202 before the completion of the ownership transfer registration.

2. Determination on the claim for return of unjust enrichment from March 21, 2015 to March 30, 2020 among the claim against Defendant D

A. Comprehensively taking account of the overall purport of the arguments as to the evidence Nos. 3-2, 3, and 12, the Plaintiff occupied the pertinent land without permission by Defendant D with Defendant D, around April 21, 2017, by constructing a house against Defendant D with the “fourth” part of the instant land.

arrow