logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 수원지방법원평택지원 2019.08.29 2019가단50548
건물등철거
Text

1. The defendant shall be the plaintiff.

A. Of 355 square meters in Ansan-si, each point is indicated in the attached Form 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 7, and 8.

Reasons

1. Basic facts

A. On December 29, 1972, the Plaintiff completed the registration of ownership transfer in his name, which was based on sale and purchase on the same day with respect to the land in Ansan-si C, 355 square meters (hereinafter “instant land”).

B. On January 4, 2018, the Defendant acquired D land, E land, F land, and each of the above land and buildings on the instant land (hereinafter “instant building”) at auction, respectively, and completed the registration of ownership transfer on January 11, 201.

C. Of the instant buildings, drawings such as drawings indicating 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 7, and 8 are attached to the instant land, the cement block structure, fences, and gates connected in sequence 1, 4, 6, and 5 of the above-mentioned drawings, which are located on the instant land.

(C) In the case of the instant building located on the instant land, the Defendant installed a steel pole and used it as dry field and parking lot, in the case of the instant building (c) connected each point of the 5, 2, 3, 6, and 5 indicated in the same drawing.

[Ground of recognition] A without dispute, entry of Gap evidence 1 through 3 (including a branch number; hereinafter the same shall apply), video of Gap evidence 5, the result of the appraisal commission to the branch of the Gyeonggi branch of the Korea Land Information Corporation, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination on removal and request for extradition

A. According to the above facts of recognition as to the cause of claim, the defendant is obligated to remove the ground of this case to the plaintiff and deliver the land of this case possessed by the defendant to the plaintiff, unless there are special circumstances.

B. The Defendant’s defense held that the instant land was trusted in title by G to the Plaintiff, one of its children, and that the instant building was owned by G. Therefore, G, the same owner of the instant land and the instant land, acquired legal superficies under the customary law on the instant land, and H and H who acquired the instant building from G.

arrow