(영문) 대전지방법원홍성지원 2016.10.25 2016가단4174

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) 대전지방법원홍성지원 2016.10.25 2016가단4174

동산취거 등 청구의 소

Text

1. The Defendant indicated in the annexed drawing No. 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, among the land size of 313-2, 282,623 square meters in writing, Seocheon-gun, Chungcheongnam-gun, Chungcheongnam-do, the Plaintiff.

Reasons

1. Facts of recognition;

A. The Plaintiff is an owner of a 282,623 square meters (hereinafter “instant real estate”) in writing, Seocheon-gun, Seocheon-gun, Chungcheongnam-do.

B. The Defendant, among the instant real property, has filled up each of the obstacles indicated in the separate sheet No. 2 list owned by the Defendant (hereinafter “instant obstacles”) on the ground of the part 657 square meters (hereinafter “the instant part”) connected in order to each of the points indicated in the separate sheet No. 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, and 1, among the instant real property, and directly occupied the instant part of the land.

[Ground for Recognition: Facts without dispute, entry of Gap evidence 1, purport of whole pleadings]

2. According to the above facts, since the defendant occupies the part of the land of this case as the owner of the obstacles of this case, the defendant is obligated to take the obstacles of this case as the owner of the land of this case and deliver the part of the land of this case to the plaintiff who exercises the right to claim the removal of interference based on ownership.

As to this, the defendant made a contract with the plaintiff for the Saemangeum Coal Transport Service (hereinafter "the service of this case") and set the obstacles of this case necessary for performing the service of this case on the land of this case. The land of this case is related to the service of this case, and as long as the service contract of this case is still effective without termination, it is argued that the defendant has the right to possess the land of this case until the plaintiff performed its duty to pay the price, etc. in accordance with the service contract of this case. However, it is insufficient to recognize that the defendant still has the right to possess the land of this case, regardless of whether the service contract of this case was terminated on the basis of the entries of Eul 1 through 15 (including the virtual number) alone.

3. If so, the plaintiff's claim of this case is reasonable and acceptable.

유사 판례

-대전지방법원홍성지원 2016.11.30 2016가단3713

-춘천지방법원강릉지원 2019.06.25 2018가단33318

-대전지방법원홍성지원 2017.07.13 2016가합926

-대전지방법원 홍성지원 2018.10.24 2018가단1988

-청주지방법원제천지원 2019.01.24 2018가합10374