Tokyo Barrister: Start the law firm bankruptcy

Chapter 274 Night Chat Gossip: The Prototype of the General Hotel Case
I promised readers before that I would release the prototype of the General Hotel case.

As a result, I forgot when I wrote the testimonial at the end of the paper.Ashamed, ashamed.

Taking advantage of this weekend night, let's talk about this case.

In the General Hotel case, the hotel was sued by Takai for removal of the load-bearing column because a load-bearing column exceeded the boundary by two square meters, and the hotel was facing the situation of being demolished.In this case, Beiyuan and Gu Meimen had an unprecedented confrontation.

Some readers have asked, is there such a case in reality?

Coincidentally, there happened to be such a case in reality, and this case happened in the Bay Island Province of my country. (The author doesn't know why it is such a coincidence)

Plaintiff (appellant) in this case: Zhang Ruiqi.Defendant (appellee): King Hotel Co., Ltd.

In this case, the load-bearing column of the King Hotel crossed the boundary and occupied three square meters of other people's land.Among them, the occupied two square meters of land belonged to Zhang Ruiqi.The other one square meter is occupied by Liangshuai Leather Shoes Store.Among them, if the King Hotel is forced to demolish the load-bearing column, it will be forced to demolish the entire 11 floors.For a while, the case caused a sensation on the island.

Let's take a look at how the real judge would judge:

The following are excerpts from the judgment in this case:
[The original trial considered the purpose of the entire debate and the results of the investigation of evidence, and concluded that: the appellant claimed that the land at Land No. [-] in dispute was owned by Yi, and that the appellee's [-]-story King Hotel building was beyond the border, and the occupation of the land was as attached to the original judgment. Figures A, B, C, D, the fact that the part shown by the connecting line of A covers an area of ​​[-] square meters is evidenced by the transcript of the land and building registration book attached to the file (pages [-]-[-] of the first-instance volume, and outside release evidence).It has been inspected by the original trial site and entrusted to the Surveying Bureau of the Land Registry Office of the City Hall. There are inspection records, appraisal documents, and appraisal drawings attached to the files (pages [-] to [-] of the original trial volume), which must be credible as authentic.The appellee's defense that Yi did not occupy the appellant's land is not credible.The fact that the appellee occupied the disputed land for the purpose of exercising superficial rights could not prove it.Also, the city hall, the original owner of the land in dispute, expressed that it was impossible to check whether the King Hotel was aware of its transgression at the beginning of its construction and did not object to it. There is a letter attached as evidence (page [-] of the original trial volume).Witnesses Guo Xianliang and Lin Rongdian could not prove that the Taiwan City Hall knew that the appellee had crossed the border and did not raise objections. ] (The name of the specific agency has been changed to City Hall)
Author's Note: The above paragraph mentioned the issue of obtaining the statute of limitations. The court of first instance believed that the statute of limitations was not enough, and the King Hotel could not acquire Zhang Ruiqi's land.

[The appellee argued that the former owner of the city hall knew that Iraq had crossed the border and did not object, which is not advisable.The appellee owns the King Hotel building, which has crossed the border and occupied [-] square meters of the land in dispute, and the city hall, the original owner of the land in dispute when the appellee built the house, was not aware of the crossing of the border and did not object Therefore, the appellant's request to the appellee to demolish the house and restore the land was not groundless.However, whether the main purpose of exercising rights is to harm others should be determined by comparing the benefits that the obligee can obtain from exercising the rights with the losses suffered by others and the state society due to the exercise of rights.If the exercise of their rights results in little benefit for themselves and great losses for others and the country and society, it must not be regarded as the main purpose of harming others. This is the inevitable explanation of the basic connotation of the socialization of rights]

Here the author explains that the original owner of Zhang Ruiqi's land in this case was the city hall, so the King Hotel objected to the plaintiff's claim on the grounds that the original land owner knew about it.It's equivalent to your previous homeowner not protesting, so you can't protest either.

The excerpt continues below:
[The statement of the appellant on pages [-] and [-] of the original trial volume), there is a copy of the building registration book and photos attached to the file (see the other evidence and the photo in the appraisal report of Zhengda Real Estate Appraisal Co., Ltd. One page), and there is no dispute between the two parties.If this is approved, the appellant will have to demolish the appellee's eleven-storey house (big pillar) to claim back the two square meters of land, and the appellant will not be able to use the two square meters of land after taking back , so the appellee defended, and the result was that the appellant got very little income and suffered great damage. It is not unfounded that the appellant has the right to abuse. 】

The above paragraph talked about the result of demolition of the load-bearing columns, which required the demolition of an entire eleven-storey building.The court of first instance held that it constituted an abuse of rights.

The excerpt continues below:

[According to Article 790 of the Civil Code, although the owner of the adjacent land knows that the owner of the land has crossed the boundary to build a house and does not raise an objection, he may not request the owner of the land to remove or change the building, but he may request the owner of the land to purchase the part of the building that crosses the boundary at a considerable price. land.Although the appellee does not have knowledge and no objection, which is inconsistent with the requirements stipulated in the article for requesting the purchase of the land that crosses the boundary, but the appellee has the knowledge and no objection, and cannot request the removal or modification of buildings, he may still request the land owner to purchase the land that crosses the boundary. For the land, the weight should be light, and according to the principle of equity, the owner of the adjacent land who does not know the building can be asked to remove or change the building. Ask it to purchase the land that crosses the boundary at a considerable price.It was the appellant who made a statement in advance, requesting the appellee to purchase the land of the cross-border part at a considerable price, which should be allowed.As for the market price of the land of two square meters of the disputed cross-border building, Yejingzhengda Real Estate Appraisal Co., Ltd. assessed it as 300 million yuan per square meter, based on the conditions of the surrounding buildings, future development conditions and the fact that the land in dispute is abnormal. The chi is 180 to 5000 yuan, and there is a certificate of appraisal attached to it (external release). 】

The above paragraph here is that the court believes that the land infringer should be ordered to purchase the part of the cross-border land in accordance with the provisions of the civil law.

The excerpt continues below:

[The appellant shall, at the same time as the appellee pays the amount, register the transfer of ownership of the two square meters of land in dispute with the appellee, and dismiss the rest of the appellant's suit.Check the appellant's land No. [-] in this case. The total area is only three square meters (less than one ping). When the city hall expropriated it as road land (X Jingdong Road), the remaining area (abnormal land) was expropriated.According to the appellant's statement in the original trial, the large pillars of the [-]-story King Hotel owned by the appellant occupy [-] square meters of the part near the sidewalk, and the remaining [-] square meter is occupied by the leather shoe store next door. Clear (see pages [-] and [-] of the original trial volume).Therefore, the original trial found that even if the appellant claimed the two square meters of land, it would not be of much use to it, and the appellee had to demolish the large pillars of the [-]-story building of the King Hotel, which would be harmful to the appellee and the society. The damage caused is extremely great, and the appellant's prior lawsuit is an abuse of rights (with the main purpose of harming others), so it should not be allowed to make the appellant's judgment against the prior lawsuit. 】

The above paragraph is about: Zhang Ruiqi’s land was expropriated by the city hall, leaving only a piece of land, even if the land was recovered, it would be of no use. Therefore, retrieving the land constituted an abuse of rights. (Think of Mr. Congressman? Hehehe)

Final court decision:
[Reject Zhang Ruiqi's appeal]

【King Hotel purchases the cross-border land according to the market price】

Readers who are interested in the analysis of this case may refer to:
Wang Zejian, "Civil Law Theory and Case Studies" (rearranged bound edition), BJ University Press, p35-38.

Verdict in the novel:

[The court also ordered General Hotel to purchase land, but did not find that it constituted abuse of rights],

(End of this chapter)