시설물철거
1. The Plaintiff:
A. Defendant A shall remove each building listed in paragraphs 3(b) through (h) of the attached Table 1 and 1.
1. In full view of Gap's records and images as to the cause of the claim, and the purport of the entire pleadings as a result of the appraiser Eul's survey and appraisal by the appraiser Eul, the plaintiff completed the registration of ownership transfer as to D forest land No. 105,917 square meters (hereinafter "the land in this case") on May 8, 2009, as the Suwon District Court receipt registration office No. 84931. The defendant Gap occupied and used the land in attached Table 1's Schedule No. 2 among the land in this case, and owned each building in attached Table No. 3(b) through (h) above. The defendant Eul occupied and used the land in attached Table 1's Schedule No. 1's Schedule No. 1's Schedule No. 1' and owned and used the building in this case's Schedule No. 3.
According to the above facts, the Defendants illegally occupy the relevant part of the land by owning the relevant building on the land, unless there is any assertion or proof on the title to possess the relevant part of the land.
As such, the Plaintiff, the owner of the instant land, is obligated to remove the relevant building and deliver the relevant part of the land.
2. As to the Defendants’ assertion, Defendant A asserts that the Plaintiff’s claim cannot be complied with until receiving compensation for losses under the Act on the Acquisition of Land, etc. for Public Works and the Compensation therefor for Land, etc. for Public Works Projects with respect to each building listed in Section 3-b through (h) of
However, the Plaintiff is seeking removal of buildings and transfer of land against the above Defendant who occupied and used the instant land without legitimate title as the owner of the instant land without legitimate title, and it does not constitute a case of acquiring land, etc. necessary for public works through consultation or expropriation, which is not subject to compensation for losses under the aforementioned Act. Accordingly, the above assertion is rejected.
Defendant B unilaterally removes the building without granting a reasonable grace period.