logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 대전고등법원(청주) 2019.05.22 2018나3602
점유회수의 소
Text

1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

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

The purport of the claim and appeal is the purport of the appeal.

Reasons

1. Quotation of the first instance judgment

A. The grounds alleged by the Plaintiff in this court while filing an appeal are not significantly different from the contents alleged by the Plaintiff in the first instance court, and even if all the evidence presented to the first instance court and this court were examined, the fact-finding and judgment of the first instance court rejecting the Plaintiff’

[In order to accept the Plaintiff’s request for extradition of the instant building, the Plaintiff’s possession of the instant building should have been lost due to the Defendant’s unlawful deprivation. Accordingly, the Plaintiff asserts that the police dispatched to the Defendant’s false report on May 25, 2016 conspired with the Defendant and illegally arrested the Plaintiff. However, even if all the evidence presented to the court were presented, it is insufficient to recognize that the Plaintiff’s above assertion or other arrest against the Plaintiff was illegal, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge this otherwise. Furthermore, it is difficult to view that the arrest was illegal solely on the ground that the Plaintiff was acquitted of the charge of interference with duties, which caused the arrest, in the first instance court related to the relevant criminal case.

B. Accordingly, the reasoning of the court concerning this case is as follows, since the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance is the same as the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance, in addition to modifying part of the judgment of the court of first instance as follows, it is acceptable to accept this as

2. On February 18, 2016, the Plaintiff’s claim under the first instance judgment No. 2, 2019 was amended to “A” and “A” were amended to “assumed on February 18, 2016,” and “assumed on February 18, 2016,” the second instance judgment No. 10 was amended to “assumed on February 18, 2016.”

The judgment of the court of first instance is just in conclusion, and the plaintiff's appeal is dismissed as it is without merit.

arrow