logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 춘천지방법원 강릉지원 2018.12.12 2018가단32353
건물등철거
Text

1. The Defendant indicated in the attached Form 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, among the land size of 1207 square meters before Gangnam-si, Gangnam-si.

Reasons

1. Facts of recognition;

A. The Plaintiffs are co-owners of 1207 square meters (hereinafter “instant land”) before Gangnam-si, Gangnam-si.

B. Of the instant land, the Defendant owns each of the buildings located on the ground of 128 square meters located on the part (A) located on the ground of 128 square meters and the containers located on the ground of 10 square meters located on the part (B) connected with each of the points of 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 20, 21, 22, 23, and 13, which are located on the part (a) of the instant land, and the containers located on the part (b) located on the ground of 10 square meters in sequence.

(hereinafter referred to as the “instant building, etc.”), . [Grounds for Recognition] of the absence of dispute, entry of evidence Nos. 1 and 4 (including paper numbers), the result of this court’s request for surveying and appraisal of the Korea Land Information Corporation, the purport of the entire pleadings.

2. According to the above facts of determination as to the cause of the claim, the Plaintiffs may seek removal of the instant building, etc. owned by the Defendant and delivery of the relevant part of the site as a removal of interference based on the ownership of the instant land, except in extenuating circumstances.

3. As to the defendant's defense and its determination, the defendant asserted that the plaintiffs exercise the right to purchase the ground of the building of this case, but there is no evidence to acknowledge that the defendant has the right to lease or superficies, which serves as the premise for exercising the right to purchase the ground of this case. Thus, the above argument by the defendant is without merit.

4. According to the conclusion, the plaintiffs' claim of this case is accepted on the grounds of its reasoning, and it is so decided as per Disposition.

arrow