(영문) 대구지방법원 2018.07.11 2017나315381

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) 대구지방법원 2018.07.11 2017나315381

건조물 철거 및 대지명도

Text

1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

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

The purport of the claim and appeal is the purport of the appeal.

Reasons

1. The reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance, which cited the judgment, is the evidence additionally submitted by this court, and extended the building on the ground of this case (hereinafter “the building in this case”) by the Defendant 27, which is insufficient to recognize the Plaintiff’s assertion. The ground of the judgment of the court of first instance is the same as the ground of the judgment of the court of first instance, except for adding “the additional judgment 2.2” as to the Plaintiff’s assertion emphasized or added by this court, as it is based on the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

2. Additional determination

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion that the date the Defendant moved to the instant building on the ground of the instant land was June 16, 1997, and thus, the point at which the point of time was the starting point for the acquisition by prescription of possession of the instant land. However, since the Plaintiff filed the instant lawsuit on November 23, 2016, before the lapse of 20 years from the point of time, the acquisition by prescription was suspended.

B. In light of social norms, since a building cannot exist regardless of its site, the land which became the site for the building shall be deemed to have been possessed by the owner of the building. In this case, even if the owner of the building does not actually occupy the building or its site, it shall be deemed to have occupied the building site for the purpose of owning the building.

(2) According to the reasoning of the judgment below, the court below erred by misapprehending the legal principles as to the change of the registered titleholder on November 16, 1997, and by misapprehending the legal principles as to the change of the registered titleholder on August 16, 1997, the court below erred by misapprehending the legal principles as to the change of the registered titleholder on August 20, 2009.

However, return to this case and evidence Nos. 7, 20, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 8, 9.

참조조문

-민사소송법 제420조

참조판례

-(변경)대법원 2003. 11. 13. 선고 2002다57935 판결

유사 판례

-대구지방법원 2015.10.07 2015가단23984

-대전지방법원천안지원 2015.09.15 2015가단104011

-수원지방법원 2020.05.27 2019나67258

-수원지방법원 2021.04.15 2020가단555286

-대구지방법원포항지원 2015.11.27 2015가단2667