logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 대전지방법원 2016.09.22 2016노704
재물손괴
Text

The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

Reasons

1. The summary of the grounds for appeal (misunderstanding of facts and misapprehension of legal principles) ① The wall removed by the Defendant is a temporary wall installed on the premise of subsequent removal in 1994. Thus, it cannot be deemed that it conforms to the warehouse portion of the instant case. ② Even though the Defendant was well aware that the warehouse part of the instant case was common area, and there was no awareness of the criminal intent or illegality of damaging another’s property, the lower court found the Defendant guilty of the facts charged in the instant case, and erred by misapprehending the legal doctrine and misapprehending the legal doctrine.

2. The lower court determined that the Defendant was guilty of the facts charged of the instant case in its explanation as follows, stating that “the grounds for conviction” was as follows.

In order for a movable to be recognized as belonging to a real estate, it shall be determined by considering whether the movable is attached and combined to the extent that it is impossible to separate the movable without damaging or excessive expenses, and whether it can become an object of separate ownership in trade with independent economic utility from existing real estate in terms of physical structure, use and function. The proviso of Article 256 of the Civil Act, which provides for the exception of attribution of ownership with respect to the attached property, provides that even if the attached property is attached to another person with its title, if the attached property has an economic value, it shall belong to the ownership of the original real estate if there is no economic value, and the determination of economic value shall be based on whether the attached property has independence of economic utility under the general social norms of the attached property (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2006Da39270, Jul. 27, 2007). The defendant constructed a building wall around 1994, and the above building shall not be removed from the wall of the warehouse.

arrow