beta
(영문) 전주지방법원정읍지원 2014.10.14 2014가단2059

토지인도 등

Text

1. The Defendant (Counterclaim Plaintiff) is not less than 578 square meters in relation to the Plaintiff (Counterclaim Defendant) in the Seoul High-gun, Jeon Chang-gun;

A. Attached appraisal No. 18,23.

Reasons

1. Determination as to the cause of the principal lawsuit

A. The fact that the land in this case is owned by the Plaintiff, the Defendant occupied the part occupied by the Defendant in this case among the land in this case, and the appraisal by the Defendant in the part occupied by the Defendant in this case, attached Table 18, 23, 15, and 18, attached hereto, shall also be acknowledged in full view of the purport of the entire pleadings as a whole, taking into account the following: (a) there is no dispute between the parties, or there is a wall 6.1m (hereinafter “the wall in this case 2”) installed on the line connecting each point of the 21,22, and 9.6m (hereinafter “the first wall in this case”) installed on the line connected each point of the 18, 23, and 15, and 18m as well as the appraisal by the Defendant in each of the (i) part of the plastic house in this case, which was connected each point of the 35m square meters in sequence, and the appraisal by the appraiser in this case, and the result of the survey by the appraiser in this court.

B. According to the above facts, the Defendant, who did not have the right to possess and use the part occupied by the Defendant, barring any special circumstance, has the duty to remove the instant vinyl and the first and second fences of this case to the Plaintiff, the owner of the part occupied by the Defendant, and deliver the part occupied by the Defendant to the Plaintiff.

2. Determination as to the defendant's defense and the cause of the counterclaim

A. As to this, the Defendant’s possession of the part of the Defendant’s possession until November 30, 200 after the lapse of 20 years from A to November 30, 200, and the prescriptive acquisition for the part of the Defendant’s possession was completed, the Plaintiff asserted that the Defendant, who acquired prescription for the part of the Defendant’s possession of the instant case, could not claim to the Defendant for the removal of the instant vinyl and the wall Nos. 1 and 2, and for the transfer of the part of the Defendant’s possession of the instant case, as a counterclaim, the transfer registration procedure for the part of the Defendant’s possession on November 30, 200 against the Plaintiff is completed.