경계 침범 및 대지인도
1. Of the instant lawsuit, the part concerning the costs of survey, appraisal, and on-site verification in this Court shall be dismissed.
2...
1. Basic facts
A. On December 10, 2013, the Plaintiff acquired ownership of 780 square meters in the E-Gun in Chungcheongnam-gun, Chungcheongnam-do (hereinafter “Plaintiff’s land”) and 131 square meters in the storage of the 1st floor, and 110 square meters in the 2nd floor, respectively, through a voluntary auction procedure. The Plaintiff is the owner of 3,554 square meters prior to F (hereinafter “Defendant’s land”).
B. On December 10, 2013, the Defendant entered into a lease agreement with C on a rent of KRW 2 million per annum with respect to the Defendant’s land, from December 10, 2013 to December 10, 2020, and C and D grow B and D on the Defendant’s land.
C. The Plaintiff filed a complaint with the Hongsung District Prosecutors’ Office No. 2016-type 2010 of Daejeon District Prosecutors’ Office, and the specific details of the complaint were as follows: “A complainant (Plaintiff) established a location, salary and steel bars for indicating the boundary between the Plaintiff’s land and the Defendant’s land, and C and D destroyed the boundary by extracting some of them around March 2014 and destroying them and impairing the boundary.”
On June 2, 2016, the Hongsung District Prosecutors' Office issued a non-prosecution disposition to the effect that C and D are not guilty.
[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap 3, 4 evidence, Eul 1's statements (including each number; hereinafter the same shall apply), the purport of the whole pleadings
2. Determination
A. On January 20, 2014, the Plaintiff asserted that the Plaintiff spent KRW 868,800 (i.e., costs for survey of KRW 200,00,00, such as costs for materials of KRW 668,800). The Plaintiff surveyed the boundary between the Plaintiff’s land and the Defendant’s land and set up a marking sealing, etc., and the Defendant, C, and D jointly damaged it.
On June 29, 2016, the Plaintiff paid 716,100 won again to conduct a boundary survey.
On the other hand, the Plaintiff filed an application for survey, appraisal, and on-site verification during the instant lawsuit, and paid a total of KRW 953,200 (i.e., expenses for on-site verification of KRW 858,000 for survey costs, KRW 95,200 for on-site verification costs, hereinafter “the costs of survey and verification”).
Therefore, the defendant is jointly and severally with C and D as above to the plaintiff.