토지인도 등
1. The Defendant: (a) is not less than 597 square meters in Gumi-si, Gumi-si;
A. Order 12, 13, 21, 22, and 12 of the Annexed Drawings
1. Facts of recognition;
A. On June 9, 2016, D completed the registration of ownership transfer with respect to the land of the Gu, Si, Seosi-si, 597 square meters (hereinafter “instant land”).
B. On May 26, 2009, the Defendant received the registration of ownership transfer as to EJ 123 square meters adjacent to the instant land.
C. Part of the storage of cement bricks, bricks, stacks, and one storys owned by the Defendant was set up on the ground part of the instant land, which connects each point of which is indicated in the Appendix No. 12, 13, 21, 22, and 12, and the wall owned by the Defendant is constructed on the part that connects each point of which is indicated in the same chart No. 15,20, 19, 18, and 17.
The Defendant occupies two square meters in the ship, which connects each point of 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, and 15 in sequence among the instant land, with the indication of the attached drawing(s) in the order of 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, and 12, 13, 14, 21, 22, and 12 of the same drawing(s).
E. In the area of 33 square meters in the above ship’s “bb” part, the 2glue, 1glue, 1glue, and 1glue tree owned by the Defendant were planted in accordance with the annexed drawings.
[Based on recognition] Each entry of Gap evidence Nos. 1 (including paper numbers; hereinafter the same shall apply), the images of Gap evidence No. 4, the result of the appraisal commission to the Korea Land Information Corporation of this Court, the purport of the whole pleadings
2. Determination
A. According to the above facts as to the cause of the claim, the defendant is ordered to do so to the plaintiff.
The warehouse and fence mentioned in paragraph (1) shall be removed, and the part of the land in this case shall be delivered, and the Disposition No. 1 shall be delivered.
There is a duty to collect each of the trees listed in the subsection.
B. As to the defendant's assertion, although the defendant had intended to purchase the land portion of this case from the plaintiff, the plaintiff's claim against the defendant for removal of the building, fence, removal of trees and delivery of the land portion of this case constitutes an abuse of rights. However, Eul evidence 1 is proved.