(영문) 광주지방법원 2017.03.17 2016나4002 | 리걸엔진

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) 광주지방법원 2017.03.17 2016나4002

토지인도 등

Text

1. In accordance with the claim of the principal suit that has been changed in exchange at the trial, the part concerning the principal suit in the judgment of the first instance is as follows.

Reasons

1. The reasoning of the court's explanation concerning this case is as stated in the judgment of the court of first instance except for the following parts, and thus, it is acceptable to accept this case as it is in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

[Supplementary parts] From 5th to 6th of the judgment of the court of first instance, the 5th of the judgment of the court of first instance shall be followed as follows.

B. (1) The Plaintiff, as the owner of each of the instant lands, may claim removal of the instant house and delivery of the site as a removal of interference against the deceased C’s heir, who is the owner of the instant land. As such, the Plaintiff, on behalf of the deceased C’s heir, seeks removal of the instant house and delivery of the site. As such, the Plaintiff, as the owner of the instant land, seeks removal of the instant house from the instant

(2) (A) The fact that the Plaintiff is the owner of each land of this case, and the deceased’s heir after the Plaintiff acquired the ownership of this case by constructing new housing of this case, and then the deceased’s heir inherited the housing of this case. The fact that the Defendant occupied the housing of this case is as seen earlier, and therefore, the Defendant is obligated to leave the housing of this case.

The Plaintiff sought withdrawal from the instant house on behalf of the deceased C’s heir, who is the owner of the instant house, on behalf of the deceased C, but the Plaintiff, a landowner, may directly request the Defendant to leave the instant house as a exclusion of interference based on his/her ownership.

(see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2010Da43801, Aug. 19, 2010). The Plaintiff’s assertion appears to include the aforementioned purport.

(B) As to this, the Defendant succeeded to each of the instant lands and the instant houses from the deceased K, so the Defendant asserts that the Defendant is a legitimate owner of the instant lands and the instant houses, but the Defendant’s assertion is not acceptable on the ground that there is no evidence to acknowledge this.

(b).

참조조문

-민사소송법 제420조

참조판례

-대법원 2010. 8. 19. 선고 2010다43801 판결

유사 판례

-대법원 2020.02.27 2017다15362

-의정부지방법원 2017.03.31 2016가단22059

-전주지방법원 2016.11.03 2015나10335

-수원지방법원평택지원 2017.07.20 2016가단9624