(영문) 대전지방법원천안지원 2015.03.13 2014가합102732

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) 대전지방법원천안지원 2015.03.13 2014가합102732

건물철거 및 토지인도

Text

1. The defendant is against the plaintiffs:

A. Of the 7,187 square meters in ASEAN-si, Asan-si, the respective points are as indicated in the annexed drawings A, B, C, D, and A.

Reasons

1. Facts of recognition;

A. The land of ten parcels, other than H 1,108 square meters, in ASEAN-si, was combined with G G 853 square meters in Chungcheongnam-si, Chungcheongnam-do, and became a G 7,187 square meters in ASEAN-si (hereinafter “instant land”).

The Plaintiffs own 1/5 shares of each of the instant land.

B. Of the instant land, the Defendant purchased an unauthorized Housing indicated in paragraph (a) of Section 1 of the Disposition No. 1 (hereinafter “instant Building”) on the ground of the part of H’s land before the said annexation from I on October 6, 2013 and resides therein.

【Fact-finding without dispute over the ground for recognition, Gap evidence 1 through 3, Eul evidence 3, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. According to the allegations by the parties and the above facts of recognition, the defendant is legally or factually obligated to remove the building of this case to the plaintiffs who are the owners of the land of this case as the right to dispose of the building of this case, and to deliver the site part of the building of this case among the land of

The defendant asserts that, 50 years prior to the above merger, F or his father, who was the land site of the building of this case, newly constructed the building of this case with the consent of use of land from the owner at the time of the above merger, and thereafter, the defendant acquired the ownership of the building of this case including the right to use the site of this case since the ownership of the building of this case, including the right to use the site of this case, the

The entries in the evidence Nos. 1 through 7 (including paper numbers) are insufficient to recognize the relationship between the defendant's assertion and the loan for use. Since there is no other evidence to acknowledge it, the above assertion by the defendant is without merit.

3. In conclusion, the plaintiff's claim of this case is justified, and it is so decided as per Disposition.

유사 판례

-대전지방법원 천안지원 2018.02.14 2016가단110693

-대전지방법원천안지원 2015.11.17 2015가단1235

-대법원 1999. 6. 25. 선고 99다5866, 5873 판결

-대전지방법원천안지원 2016.11.30 2015가단105878

-대전지방법원 2015.10.30 2014나7092