건물철거 및 토지인도
1. The defendant's appeal is dismissed.
2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Defendant.
The defendant of the purport of the claim shall be the plaintiff.
1. The reasoning of the judgment of this court citing the judgment of the court of first instance is as stated in the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance, except for the case where the defendant determines as follows with respect to the additional arguments, etc. presented by the court of first instance.
2. The addition;
A. Of the land size 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, and 1 of the attached Table 1 appraisal map among the land size C 2484 square meters in Tae-si, Chungcheongnam-si, the Plaintiff asserted that the removal of each of the above buildings is against the principle of disposal in light of the following facts: (a) the first instance court ordered the removal of the 55 square meters of the 2nd floor of the 2nd floor building and the claim for the delivery of the site connected each of the above buildings in sequence 6,7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, and 6,7, 8, 10, 10, 12, 13, and 6; and (b) the first instance court ordered the removal of the 2/3th floor of each of the above buildings in line with the drawings originally submitted by the Plaintiff; and (c) the first instance court accepted the removal of the 2/3th floor of the parts of the building in excess of this principle.
According to the result of the survey and appraisal conducted by appraiser E, the actual status of each of the above buildings can be recognized as the same facts as the appraisal conducted by the attached Table 1, not the drawings attached to the plaintiff's complaint. Since the plaintiff changed the purport of the claim based on the current status of the attached Table 1 appraisal written by the plaintiff according to the result of the survey and appraisal conducted by appraiser E, the judgment of the court of first instance is not
Next, the defendant asserts that the removal of part of the building among the plaintiff's claim constitutes a claim that is impossible to realize it. Thus, if part of the defendant's building extends over the plaintiff's land, it is inevitable for the plaintiff to seek the removal of part of the building, and the remaining parts are considerably effective due to the removal of part of the building.