logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 의정부지방법원 2016.06.09 2015나57165
소유권이전등기 등
Text

1. The plaintiff (Counterclaim defendant)'s appeal is dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Plaintiff (Counterclaim Defendant).

purport, purport, and.

Reasons

1. The reasons for the court's explanation concerning this case are as follows: "A 474/2,830 shares of 474/2,830 shares out of the D land in this case "A 474/2,830 shares of 474/2,830 shares, which are the road portion of the above shares of J", "B 3." The defendant C as his heir upon the death of T on or around December 2010, "I 4.5,7,8,10,15 shares" of 6.3,6.7,7,8,10,10,15 shares among the D land in this case, "A 474/2,830 shares, which are the road portion of the above shares of J," and "A 3.0,000 won and 40,000 won and 16.0,000 won and 2.07,000 won and 14.07,000 won of the plaintiff's appeal."

2. Additional matters to be determined;

A. The Plaintiff asserts that since the instant road shares are accessories attached to the Plaintiff’s use of the Plaintiff’s share in D land 394/2,830, the instant road shares should also be transferred to the Plaintiff as long as the said share in the land was transferred to the Plaintiff.

However, Article 100(1) of the Civil Code provides that, if the owner of an article has attached thereto another article owned by him for commercial use of such article, the accessory is an accessory. Thus, the accessory must belong to the same owner as the principal article, the accessory must be affiliated with the principal article, and the accessory must be affiliated with the principal article, and shall be an independent article which is related to the commercial use of the principal article.

(See Supreme Court Decision 2003Da29005 Decided April 9, 2004, etc.). However, the Plaintiff’s assertion that the Defendant’s share in the instant land is a major thing and an accessory article of the D land is merely a part of the instant land, and it is difficult to view the instant road share as an independent thing. Thus, the Plaintiff’s assertion that the instant road share is an accessory article is without merit.

Even if the share of the instant road is an accessory, the accessory shall dispose of the principal thing.

arrow