logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 서울중앙지방법원 2018.09.14 2017가단3527
건물인도 및 지료
Text

1. The Defendant’s successor remove the building indicated in the attached list No. 1 to the Plaintiff, and the attached list No. 2.

Reasons

1. Facts of recognition;

A. E, as co-owners of share 21.4/21.9 (hereinafter “instant share of land”) among the land listed in the attached list No. 2 (hereinafter “instant land”), newly constructed a building listed in the attached list No. 1 (hereinafter “instant building”) on the instant land as co-owners.

Co-owners of the remainder of 0.5/21.9 shares, other than the share of the instant land, were F, and were changed to G on August 27, 2009.

B. On January 15, 1997, the Defendant purchased the instant land shares and the instant building from E, and on April 16, 1997, filed a registration of transfer of the Defendant’s shares in the name of the Defendant with respect to the instant land shares. However, the instant building was unregistered and its registration was not made.

C. On December 16, 2016, the Plaintiff acquired the Defendant’s share in the instant land through a voluntary auction, and completed the registration of transfer in the name of the Plaintiff.

On April 18, 2018, the Defendant, while the instant lawsuit was pending on April 18, 2018, filed a registration of preservation of ownership by subrogation in the name of inheritor E, and ②

On July 17, 2017, the registration of ownership transfer under the name of the defendant was completed on the grounds of sale as stated in the paragraph, and the registration of ownership transfer was completed under the name of the defendant's successor on the grounds of payment in kind.

[Reasons for Recognition] Facts without a partial dispute, Gap evidence 1, 2, Eul evidence 3, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination

A. As to the claim against the Defendant’s successor, a building cannot exist regardless of its site. As such, the land which became the site of the building should be deemed to have been possessed by the relevant building owner.

(2) In light of the above facts, the Defendant’s successor, the owner of the instant building, is obligated to remove the instant building on the instant land and deliver the instant land to the Plaintiff, one of the co-owners of the instant land. The Defendant’s successor, the owner of the instant building, is obligated to remove the instant building and deliver the instant land.

(b).

arrow