logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 춘천지방법원속초지원 2016.08.23 2015가단2883
시설물철거 등
Text

1. All of the plaintiffs' claims are dismissed.

2. The costs of lawsuit are assessed against the plaintiffs.

Reasons

1. The key point of the Plaintiffs’ assertion is that the Defendant’s construction works to construct containers on the ground of 11,347 square meters (hereinafter “trust land”) adjacent to the instant land owned by the Plaintiffs (hereinafter “instant construction works”) and buried electric wires on the instant land, installed storages, etc., and infringed the Plaintiffs’ ownership by occupying and using the instant land without permission by piling materials such as waterway, etc., and seek removal of various facilities and return of unjust enrichment from the use of the relevant land against the Defendant.

2. In full view of the purport of the argument in the statement No. 1 of the judgment, the defendant entered into a security trust agreement on August 7, 2013 with JJT Co., Ltd. (hereinafter "JJT") on the trust land and its ground buildings, and Article 3 (2) of the trust agreement provides that "the trustee shall carry out the management of ownership in the register of the trust and disposal upon the request of the priority beneficiary, and the actual management of the real possession, construction, maintenance, management, sale, lease, etc. of the other trust real estate shall be dealt with by the truster or beneficiary," and the non-party company, the truster, can recognize the fact that the new construction of this case was carried out pursuant to the above trust agreement. According to the above facts, the defendant is merely a person entrusted with the ownership of the land and the building on the ground that the new construction of this case was actually carried out, and it is deemed that the non-party company established various facilities on the land of this case, and no other evidence exists to deem that the defendant installed various facilities on the land of this case.

Therefore, the plaintiff's above assertion is without merit without examining the remainder of the issue.

As to this, the Plaintiffs.

arrow