건물등철거
1. All of the plaintiff's claims are dismissed.
2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.
1. Basic facts
A. The Plaintiff and Defendant B are the children of the network D, and they are the children of the network D.
B. Around March 10, 2008, Defendant B newly constructed a building listed in [Attachment List No. 2 (hereinafter “instant building”) on the ground of the land listed in [Attachment List No. 1 (hereinafter “instant land”) owned by the network D (hereinafter “instant land”), and leased the instant building to Defendant C.
C. Defendant C leased the instant building from Defendant B, and installed a prefabricated-type mobile house and container (hereinafter “instant prefabricated-type house”) on the instant land in accordance with the attached Form Nos. 3 through 7 as indicated in the attached Table No. 1, and used all the instant land and buildings.
The Plaintiff was donated from the network D to refer the instant land on May 15, 2014, and completed the registration of ownership transfer on May 20, 2014. The Plaintiff totaled KRW 47,928,000 from May 15, 2014 to July 31, 2018, and thereafter rent is KRW 7,161,00 per month.
【Ground of recognition】 The fact that there has been no dispute, entry of Gap 2 through 5, the result of each entrustment of appraisal to the Cheongju and Vice-Governor of the Korea Land Information Corporation and E Appraisal Corporation, and the purport of all pleadings
2. On the Plaintiff’s assertion, Defendant B, as the owner of the instant land, occupied the instant land owned by the Plaintiff without legitimate authority, and accordingly, Defendant B demanded removal of the instant building on that ground and delivery of that land (including a claim for unjust enrichment of KRW 7,161,00 per month). In addition, even if the Defendant’s loan relation is acknowledged, the Plaintiff asserted that the instant land was fully used for more than nine years to own the instant building, and that the loan agreement was terminated by delivery of preparatory documents as of August 16, 2017.
In addition, as the Plaintiff is the owner of the instant land, the Defendant is obligated to remove the disturbance of ownership.