beta
(영문) 대구지방법원 서부지원 2017.02.08 2016가단57400

토지인도

Text

1. The defendant will link the plaintiff with each point indicated in the attached Form 7, 10 square meters among the 290 square meters of land in the Sung-gun, Sung-gun, Sung-gun, Seongbuk-do.

Reasons

1. Basic facts

A. The Plaintiff acquired a large scale of 290 square meters (hereinafter “instant land”) in the procedure of voluntary auction by Seo-gu District Court Seo-gu District Court DD (Seoul District Court) and completed the registration of ownership transfer on December 17, 2012.

B. The Defendant had completed the registration of ownership transfer on September 16, 2014 with respect to the E large scale 343 square meters adjacent to the instant land, and resided in the relevant land (hereinafter “ neighboring housing”). Since the fence of the neighboring housing was constructed in the line that connects each point of the attached Form 7, 10 among the instant land in sequence, the Defendant used the portion of “b” 5 square meters connected in sequence 7, 8, 9, 10, and 7, which is the inner part of the wall, as the neighboring housing site.

【Ground of recognition】 1, 2, and 3 Evidence Nos. 4-1, 2, and 1-1 through 3-3 of Evidence Nos. 4-1, 2, and 1-3 of the Korea Land Information Corporation, the result of a request for surveying and appraisal to the sexual branch of the Korea Land Information Corporation, the purport of the entire pleadings

2. According to the above facts of recognition, barring any special circumstance, the Defendant is obligated to remove to the Plaintiff the fences in order to connect each point of 7,10 of the annexed drawing Nos. 7, 8, 9, 10, and 7 of the land in this case, and to deliver five square meters of “b” portion to the Plaintiff in the ship which connects each point of 7, 8, 9, 10,

In this regard, the defendant asserts that the plaintiff's claim is abuse of right, but the defendant's claim does not constitute abuse of right only by the circumstances alleged by the defendant.

3. In conclusion, the plaintiff's claim of this case is justified, and it is so decided as per Disposition.