(영문) 춘천지방법원강릉지원 2015.06.24 2013가단23514

beta

본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.

Text

Reasons

텍스트 조절

글꼴

크기(pt)

굵기

줄 간격

자간(%)

(영문) 춘천지방법원강릉지원 2015.06.24 2013가단23514

소유권확인

Text

1. The part of the Plaintiff’s conjunctive claim against the Defendants seeking the determination of rental fees.

Reasons

1. Basic facts

A. The instant house is unregistered real estate that extends over both sides of the D preceding and E site (B).

(b) Pre- and E sites are unregistered real estate and whose land cadastre owner is indicated as net F;

C. Meanwhile, on April 12, 1995, the deceased on the other hand, the deceased on April 12, 1995, and the final heir of G and H, who is the wife, and K and L, who is the wife of the Plaintiff and H, and the deceased I (MF).

[Reasons for Recognition] Uncontentious Facts, Gap 1, 2, 4, and 8 (including virtual numbers), the result of the on-site inspection conducted by this court, the result of the appraiser M's survey and appraisal conducted by the appraiser M, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Judgment as to the main claim

A. (1) Around October 23, 2001, N, the former owner of the instant housing, transferred the Plaintiff’s mother’s ownership of the instant housing to G.

(2) And G had Defendant B use the instant housing free of charge for 10 years.

(3) At around 2013, the Plaintiff transferred the ownership of the instant housing from G, for which the period of free use elapsed, the Plaintiff demanded Defendant B to surrender the instant housing, but Defendant B refused to do so and transferred the ownership to Defendant C.

(4) Therefore, the Defendants jointly have the duty to order the Plaintiff to purchase the instant housing.

B. The Plaintiff’s mother, the Plaintiff’s mother, appears to be consistent with the fact that G was transferred the ownership of the instant housing from N around 2001, and the witness N’s testimony is difficult to believe this in light of the respective descriptions of the evidence Nos. 6 (including the serial number) and Nos. 1 and 2, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge this.

Therefore, the plaintiff's assertion based on the premise that G was legally transferred the ownership of the instant housing around 2001 is without merit without any need to examine the remaining points.

C. According to the theory of lawsuit, the plaintiff's claim for this part is without merit.

3. Judgment on the conjunctive claim

A. The plaintiff.

유사 판례

-인천지방법원 2015.05.14 2014고단8587

-전주지방법원군산지원 2020.11.25 2017가단52571

-대법원 2022. 4. 28. 선고 2021다304403 판결

-창원지방법원 2018.01.11 2017가단3072

-광주지방법원 장흥지원 2017.02.08 2016가단609