logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 수원지방법원 2020.10.29 2020나55862
지료(법정지상권자에 대하여 청구)
Text

The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

Expenses for appeal shall be borne by the plaintiff.

Purport of claim and appeal

The defendant.

Reasons

1. The facts on the basis of the claim: ① The land cadastre of each cemetery on which the Defendant was unregistered (hereinafter collectively referred to as the “instant land”) is registered as the owner; ② The fact that the “F”, the Defendant’s protocol, is not indicated in each land cadastre (No evidence No. 3 and No. 1) submitted by the original and the Defendant, but the land cadastre No. 3 is indicated in each land cadastre (the evidence No. 3 and No. 1). However, in the land register perused by the business system, the F is indicated as being the land register of June 9, 1914; ② The fact that the Defendant formed the farm building on the instant land is not disputed between the parties, or is recognized according to the overall purport of the pleadings and arguments as a whole.

2. The plaintiff's claim determination (1) is that the land of this case was owned by the plaintiff who had been recovered from the plaintiff's early 100 years ago (as part of the land of this case was incorporated into the Seocheon-gun, Seocheon-gun, Gun around January 30, 201, the defendant notified the defendant of compensation by its land cadastre, and the defendant applied for compensation around that time. The plaintiff's small part of the land of this case filed an objection for the above reasons, and the defendant eventually divided G and compensation into half, and the defendant eventually divided into half of G and compensation). As of July 24, 2019, the defendant who cultivated without permission from the land of this case was obligated to pay 280,000 won (180,000 won x 16 years x 16 years) and the 180,000 won of the land of this case by July 24, 2019.

(2) The land cadastre of this case, as seen above, was continuously registered as the owner by F, who is the Defendant’s father, on the land cadastre of this case, and there is no objective evidence to regard the land of this case as the land land which was excessively landed from Plaintiff Cho Jae-ok to the Plaintiff, and ② the currency with the Plaintiff.

arrow