I promised readers before that I would release the prototype of the General Hotel case.

As a result, I forgot about it when I was writing my final remarks. I’m ashamed, I’m ashamed.

Let’s take advantage of this weekend night to talk about this case.

In the case of the General Hotel, the hotel was sued by Takai to remove the load-bearing column because a load-bearing column exceeded the boundary by two square meters, and was facing demolition. In this case, Kitahara and Komemon engaged in an unprecedented confrontation.

.

Some readers raised questions, so does such a case exist in reality?

It is very coincidental that there happens to be such a case in reality. This case happened in the Bay Island Province of my country. (The author does not know why it happened by such a coincidence)

The plaintiff (appellant) in this case: Zhang Ruiqi. The defendant (appellee): King Hotel Co., Ltd.

In this case, the load-bearing pillars of the King Hotel crossed the land boundary and occupied three square meters of other people's land. Among them, the two square meters of land occupied were owned by Zhang Ruiqi. The other one square meter was occupied by Liangshuai Leather Shoes Store. Among them, the King Hotel Ruoru

If they were forced to demolish the load-bearing column, they would be forced to demolish the entire 11th floor. The case caused a sensation on the island.

Let’s take a look at how a real judge would rule:

The following are excerpts from the judgment in this case:

[The original trial considered the purpose of the entire argument and the results of the investigation of evidence, and concluded that: the appellant claimed that the land in question was owned by Iraq, and that the eleven-story building of the King Hotel owned by the appellee crossed the boundary, and the occupation of the land was as stated in the original judgment.

The fact that the area shown in Figures a, b, c, d and a is two square meters is evidenced by the attached copy of the land and building registration book (pages 57 to 59 of the first instance volume, and other documents).

(Publish evidence). The original inspection site and the inspection by the Surveying Bureau of the Land Affairs Office of the City Hall are verified to be true. There are inspection records and approval letters, and the inspection plans are attached to the file (pages 48 to 50 of the original inspection file).

It must be believable as true. The respondent's defense that Yi did not occupy the land of the appellant is not credible. The respondent cannot provide evidence to substantiate the fact that it occupied the disputed land with the intention of exercising superficies. The so-called Yi Ji

It is not advisable to obtain land rights due to statute of limitations. Moreover, the original owner of the disputed land, the City Hall, said that it was unable to investigate whether the King Hotel was aware that it was crossing the boundary at the beginning of its construction and did not object. There is a letter attached to the file.

As evidence (page 95 of the original trial volume). Witnesses Guo Xianliang and Lin Rongdian could not prove that the Taiwan City Hall knew that the respondent had crossed the boundary of the building without raising any objection.] (The specific name of the agency was changed to the City Hall)

Author's note: The above paragraph talks about the issue of obtaining the statute of limitations. The court of first instance held that it was not sufficient to obtain the statute of limitations, and the King Hotel could not obtain Zhang Ruiqi's land.

[The respondent’s defense is that the original owner, the City Hall, knew that the building was over the boundary and did not object, which is not meritorious. The King Hotel property owned by the respondent has crossed the boundary and occupied two square meters of the land disputed by the appellant.

When the appellant built the house, the original owner of the disputed land, the City Hall, was not aware of the fact that it had crossed the boundary and did not object. Therefore, the appellant's request for the appellee to demolish the house and return it to the land is not without foundation. However, according to the exercise of rights, whether

The main purpose of harming others should be determined by comparing the benefits that the right holder can obtain from exercising his rights with the losses suffered by others and the country and society due to the exercise of his rights. If the exercise of his rights results in very little benefit, and

If the losses suffered by others and the country and society are very great, it must not be regarded as the main purpose of harming others. This is an inevitable explanation of the basic connotation of socialization of rights]

The author explains here 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 had knowledge. This is equivalent to the fact that your previous landlord did not protest, so

You can't protest either.

The excerpt continues below:

[Appellant's statement on pages 123 and 124 of the original trial file], with a copy of the building registration book and photos attached (see separate exhibits and the inspection report of National Cheng Da Real Estate Appraisal Co., Ltd.

The first page of the photo), and there is no dispute between the two parties. If this is the case, the appellant will claim back the two square meters of land, and the appellee's eleven-story house (large pillars) must be demolished, and the appellant will take

After returning the two square meters of land, it was not available for general use, so the appellee argued. As a result, the appellant gained very little and suffered great damage. The appellant abused his rights, which is not without evidence.]

The above paragraph talks about the result of demolishing the load-bearing columns, which required the demolition of the entire eleventh floor. The court of first instance believed that this constituted an abuse of rights.

The excerpt continues below:

[According to the provisions of Article 796 of the Civil Code, if the owner of neighboring land knows that the landowner has built a house beyond the boundary and does not raise an objection, although he may not request the landowner to remove or change the building, he may request the landowner to pay an equivalent price.

Purchasing the cross-border land. Although the respondent has no knowledge and does not object, and does not meet the requirements for requesting the purchase of the cross-border land as stipulated in this article, but has known the knowledge and does not object, and is not allowed to request the removal or change of the building, he may still request the land.

The owner who purchases the part of the land that crosses the boundary may, with due diligence and in accordance with the principle of equity, request the removal or change of the owner of the neighboring land without knowing the building. Of course, he may not request the owner of the land (the provisions of this article apply by analogy).

Remove or change the building and request the appellee to purchase the land that crosses the boundary for an equivalent amount. If the appellant made a preliminary statement and requested the respondent to purchase the land that exceeds the boundary for an equivalent amount, it should be allowed. As for the situation

The market price of the two square meters of land contested for the out-of-border building was determined by the Real Estate Supervision Co., Ltd. to be three million yuan per square meter for two square meters, based on the condition of the surrounding buildings, future development conditions, and the fact that the disputed land was a piece of land.

The meter is 1,815,000 yuan, and there is a book of supervision and inspection (released to the public).]

This chapter is not over yet, please click on the next page to continue reading! The above paragraph here talks about the court’s opinion that the land infringers should be ordered to purchase this part of the cross-border land in accordance with the provisions of the civil law.

The excerpt continues below:

[The appellant shall also transfer and register the ownership of the two square meters of land in question to the appellee at the same time that the appellee pays the amount, and reject the remaining claims of the appellant. Check all copies of the appellant's documents 40

The total area of ​​the land with the land number is only three square meters (less than one square meter). When the city hall expropriated it as road land (X Jingdong Road), the remaining area (abnormal land) was expropriated. The King Hotel owned by the appellee was ten

The large pillars of the one-story house occupied two square meters of the part close to the sidewalk, and the remaining one square meter was occupied by the leather shoe store next door. This was clearly stated by the appellant in the original trial (see original trial volume 123).

, page 124). The original trial therefore held that even if the appellant claimed the two square meters of land, it would not be of much use to it, and the appellee would have to demolish the large pillars of the eleven-story King Hotel building.

, which has caused great harm to the respondent and society. The appellant’s prior lawsuit is an abuse of rights (with the main purpose of harming others) and should not be allowed. The judgment for the prior lawsuit is that the appellant has lost the case.]

The above paragraph talks about: Because Zhang Ruiqi’s land was expropriated by the city hall, only a small amount of land is left. Even if the land is taken back, it will be of no use. Therefore, claiming the land back constitutes an abuse of rights. (Did you think of Mr. Congressman? Hehehehe)

The final court decision:

[Dismiss Zhang Ruiqi’s appeal]

[King Hotel purchases cross-border land at market price]

Readers who are interested in the analysis of this case can refer to:

Wang Zejian, "Research on Civil Law Doctrine and Jurisprudence" (rearranged bound edition), BJ University Press, p35-38.

Judgment in the novel:
Chapter completed!