logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 의정부지방법원 2018.01.31 2017나214207
건물등철거
Text

1. All appeals by the Defendants are dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal are assessed against the Defendants.

Purport of claim and appeal

1.

Reasons

1. The reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance citing the reasoning of the judgment is as follows, except for the addition of the following "2. Additional Judgment" as to the assertion added by the Defendants in this court, and therefore, it is citing it in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure

2. Additional determination

A. 1) Determination on the assertion of statutory superficies is based on the purport of the Defendants’ assertion. At the time of the establishment of the instant collateral security right, E’s plastic greenhouse owned on the instant land (hereinafter “the instant plastic greenhouse”).

(2) Although the land of this case was located, B acquired the ownership of the land of this case on March 25, 2008, and consequently, B changed the owner of the land of this case and a vinyl house, a customary statutory superficies was established regarding the land of this case. Since the customary statutory superficies was established, the land of this case, which was newly constructed B together with the land of this case, belongs to the owner of the land of this case. However, since the Plaintiff purchased the land of this case at the auction procedure commenced on the basis of the mortgage of this case, the legal superficies of this case was established and the Defendants had the right to use the land of this case. (2) Since the legal superficies of Article 366 of the Civil Act, the statutory superficies of the Civil Act, which determined that the land of this case was established, is limited to the case where there is a building on the land of this case which is the object of mortgage from the time of the establishment of the mortgage, and after the mortgagee of the right to collateral security had established a mortgage on the land without a building but became the owner of the land of this case due to auction procedure.

(see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 95Da24524, Dec. 26, 1995). In addition, in a case where land and buildings were owned by the same person, but their owners were different due to sale and purchase or other causes, in particular, those owners are different.

arrow