토지인도
The Defendant, as the Plaintiff
A. 57 square meters and 1 on the same ground, which are a 374 square meters roof of a wooden tank on land in Gangnam-si, Gangnam-si.
1. According to the overall purport of Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 4 (including numbers with a number) and the alteration theory as to the cause of the claim, the plaintiff purchased from D on October 10, 2016 the land of Gangseo-si C large 374 square meters (hereinafter "the land of this case") and completed the registration of transfer of ownership on October 25, 2016. The defendant, on April 30, 2019, is obligated to remove the land of this case to the plaintiff, which is the owner of each of the land of this case, by gifting the land of this case on May 2, 2019 and completing the registration of transfer of ownership. According to the above, the defendant, on April 30, 2019, is obligated to remove the land of this case, which is the owner of each of the land of this case.
2. On the judgment of the Defendant’s assertion, the Defendant asserted that, since E, the former owner of each of the instant buildings, leased the instant land in KRW 500,000 per annum from D, the former owner of each of the instant buildings, the Defendant thereafter, asserted that the status of the land lessor under the said lease contract was succeeded to the Plaintiff, and that the status of the land lessee under the said lease contract was succeeded to the Defendant. However, even if the land lease contract was concluded between D and E as claimed by the Defendant, there is no ground to deem that the relevant land lease relationship or the status of the lessor, the lessor, and the lessee of each of the instant buildings was succeeded to the Plaintiff and the Defendant as it is ( Furthermore, each of the instant buildings was constructed around 1975 and January 2, 1978 after obtaining a construction permit around that time, and the registration for preservation of ownership was completed on May 9, 2018, and each of the instant land owner at the time of its new construction). The Defendant’s assertion is without merit.
3. In conclusion, the plaintiff's claim of this case is reasonable, and it is so decided as per Disposition.