logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 청주지방법원충주지원 2017.08.08 2015가단7759
건물철거 등
Text

1. The defendant shall be the plaintiff.

A. Of the land size of 413 square meters in the voice-gun of Chungcheongbuk-gun, the annexed map No. 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21.

Reasons

1. Determination as to the cause of claim

A. Comprehensively taking account of the overall purport of the arguments as a result of appraiser E’s appraisal, the Plaintiff is the owner of 413 square meters of land D (hereinafter “instant land”). The Defendant owned the instant land and the instant land, which are owned by the owner of 13,14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, and 13 of the attached drawings, among the land in the instant case, and the instant land, which are owned by each of the instant land owned by 13, 14, 16, 17, 19, 21, 21, 222, 23, 24, 26, 27, and 13, the portion of the instant building owned by each of the instant land and the instant land owned by each of the instant land, and each of the instant land owned by each of the instant land is connected to 131,14,17,14,17,4,17.

B. According to the above facts, it is reasonable to view that the Defendant owned the instant building and occupied the instant land corresponding to the land occupation part among the instant building. Thus, barring any special circumstance, the Plaintiff is obligated to remove the land occupation portion of the instant building and deliver the instant land portion corresponding to the relevant site.

2. Judgment on the defendant's defense

A. Both the Defendant’s defense and the instant building were owned by the Defendant. At the auction procedure based on the right to collateral security established with respect to the instant land, the Plaintiff would be different from the Plaintiff’s successful bid. As such, the Defendant acquired statutory superficies (the Defendant asserted that the instant land is a statutory superficies under customary law, but the same is determined by prior determination) for the purpose of owning the instant building pursuant to Article 366 of the Civil Act. Thus, the Defendant did not have any obligation to comply with the Plaintiff’s request for removal of the instant building and the request for its delivery

(b) the board 1.

arrow