(영문) 의정부지방법원 2015.05.14 2014가단52544

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) 의정부지방법원 2015.05.14 2014가단52544

일반건축물소유권 등 확인

Text

1. The instant lawsuit shall be dismissed.

2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

Reasons

1. Basic facts

A. The real estate listed in the separate sheet (hereinafter “instant building”) is unregistered and registered as B in the ordinary building ledger as the owner.

B. On October 24, 2013, the instant building was expropriated in the Defendant Gyeonggi-do Si Corporation, and on February 6, 2014, the Defendant Gyeonggi-do Corporation deposited KRW 42,00,600 as the deposit amount of KRW 42,00,000 for the expropriation compensation as the deposit amount.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 7, 8, Eul evidence 1, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination as to the legitimacy of the instant lawsuit

A. The Plaintiff’s owner of the instant building asserted is the Plaintiff, and Defendant Gyeonggi-do Corporation deposited the land expropriation compensation to Defendant Gyeonggi-do Corporation, seeking confirmation against the Plaintiff that the Plaintiff is the owner of the instant building. The Plaintiff did not exercise the Plaintiff’s right to claim the payment of the deposit money of the instant building, and the descendants did not find the deposit money. Therefore, the Plaintiff’s claim against the Republic of Korea should be confirmed as the owner of the instant building in the place where the deposit money will be reverted to the National Treasury.

B. The Defendants asserted that the instant lawsuit is unlawful as there is no benefit of confirmation.

C. A lawsuit for confirmation of a claim against the defendant 1 is permitted where there is a benefit to immediately determine the current right or legal relationship between the disputing parties. Thus, in order to seek confirmation of ownership against a country which does not dispute ownership, there is a special circumstance where it is effective to remove the plaintiff's legal status unstable. Thus, in the case of a building, the keeping and management of the house ledger or the building management ledger cannot be deemed as the state's inherent affairs, and the state's ownership of the building in question shall not be deemed as the state's inherent affairs.

유사 판례

-대법원 1999. 5. 28. 선고 99다2188 판결

-부산지방법원 2018.10.25 2018가단321398

-대구지방법원김천지원 2019.09.10 2019가단30477

-서울중앙지방법원 2016.12.08 2015가합16571

-수원지방법원 성남지원 2018.11.28 2018가단4641