logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 창원지방법원 2016.06.21 2015가단19318
손해배상(기)
Text

1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

Reasons

1. Basic facts

A. On November 3, 2014, the area of land for factory B 8951.2 square meters in Kimhae-si was divided into 3,306 square meters of land for factory (hereinafter “instant land”) and 5,645.2 square meters of land for factory in B (hereinafter “Defendant-owned land”) respectively.

B. On April 13, 2015, the Plaintiff purchased the instant land from D (hereinafter “D”) Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “D”), a de facto owner of the instant land (with respect to the registry, the K non-Real Estate Trust Co., Ltd., the trustee was completed on March 11, 2014). According to the sales contract, the Plaintiff completed the registration of ownership transfer as the receipt on April 28, 2015 by the Changwon District Court Kimhae-si Court Decision 4934, Apr. 28, 2015.

C. On April 29, 2015, the Plaintiff obtained a construction permit for the construction of a factory building on the instant land from Kimhae-si.

The Defendant purchased the Defendant’s land adjacent to the instant land from D on October 16, 2014, and completed the registration of ownership transfer under the sales contract as the receipt No. 124664 on November 11, 2014.

E. On January 27, 2015, the Defendant obtained a construction permit from Kimhae-si to construct a factory building on the land owned by the Defendant.

[Ground of Recognition] Unsatisfy, entry and video of Gap evidence 1 to 3 (including paper numbers), entry of Eul evidence 1, the purport of whole pleadings

2. The assertion and judgment

A. The plaintiff 1) had been aware of the fact that the plaintiff was granted a construction permit to construct the building on the land of this case, and the defendant arbitrarily cut off the end of the land of this case. The above Section was agreed to restore the land to its original state at least until the end of April, 2015, and the restoration was made at the end of June, 2015, which was two months thereafter, and the plaintiff failed to start the construction for two months.

B. Therefore, the defendant suffered losses for two months until the land-saving is restored to the plaintiff, i.e., construction.

arrow