건물등철거
1. The defendant shall be the plaintiff.
A. The delivery of a 396m2 and D 421m2 in Kimpo-si;
(b) the location of Kimpo-si C and E;
1. The Plaintiff’s assertion that the Plaintiff: (a) the Plaintiff: (b) leased the part of the “A”; (c) 36,00,000,000 m2 in the ship connecting each of the points of Kimpo-si, Kimpo-si, C, 396 m21 m2,421 m2 (hereinafter “each of the instant lands”); (c) and (d), Kimpo-si, C and E m25,26,27,28,29,29,30,30,31,32, and 16 m2; and (d) the said lease agreement was terminated; (c) the Defendant delivered each of the instant lands and containers to the Plaintiff; and (d) the Defendant did not fully pay the rent after the lease; and (d) the Defendant is obligated to return unjust enrichment equivalent to the rent and rent from the date the lease was completed to the date of late delivery.
In addition, the Defendant is obligated to remove the stone tower without permission on the land owned by the Plaintiff, Kimpo-si D (hereinafter “instant stone tower”).
2. Determination
A. The Plaintiff is the owner of each of the instant land and containers.
(2) On January 3, 2009, the Plaintiff entered into a lease agreement (hereinafter “instant lease agreement”) with the Defendant on the following terms: (a) KRW 1 million as lease deposit for each of the instant land and containers; (b) from January 10, 2009 to January 9, 201, the lease term of KRW 300,000 per month; and (c) the lease agreement with the Defendant on the condition that it shall be paid only when the inspection is imported (hereinafter “instant lease agreement”).
(3) The Defendant set up the instant stone tower on the land of Kimpo-si D.
(4) On September 5, 2013, the Plaintiff demanded the Defendant to transfer the land, container, stone tower, etc. in Kimpo-si.
(5) The Defendant is currently in possession of each of the instant land and containers while operating the inspection in the instant container up to now.
[Grounds for recognition] The descriptions and images of Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 8, and the purport of the whole pleadings
B. According to the above facts of recognition as to the extradition claim, this case is examined.