토지인도
1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.
2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.
1.The facts subsequent to the facts of recognition do not conflict between the parties or may be recognized by taking into account the respective entries or images of Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 10, 14, 15, and 16 (including branch numbers; hereinafter the same shall apply) and the whole purport of the pleadings:
The Plaintiff is the owner of the instant land, and Defendant B is the owner of the above E-Ba-1805 square meters (hereinafter “Defendant B’s land”) located on the same side of the instant land, and Defendant C is the owner of the above F-2412 square meters (hereinafter “Defendant C’s land”) located on the north side of the instant land.
The defendants are growing rice plants in the above E and F respectively.
B. From the land of Defendant B, there is a shotphone on the land of Defendant C over the creamble part.
Based on the bottom of dynasium, the part on the dynasium and three parts are located on the land.
2. Summary of both claims;
A. As part of the Plaintiff’s assertion within the instant land, Defendant B is in possession of the three-dimensional parts, and Defendant C is in possession of the two-dimensional parts.
In particular, the Defendants have expanded the debate over several years by bringing soil each year and piling new arcts. b. c. as an arctal bank adjacent to the issues on which the Defendants sc. are agricultural and fishery products, the three parts are not passed or used by others except the Defendants.
Article 65(1) of the Spatial Data Establishment, Management, etc. Act provides that “the ground boundary of the land shall be classified into a bank, fence, other structure that can serve as the object of division, and a boundary mark, etc.,” and Article 55(1)2 of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act provides that “if there is a low difference between the adjoining land, the lower part of the structure, etc. shall be determined as the criteria for determining the ground boundary on the ground.” In this case, the lower part of the embankment falls under the boundary between the Plaintiff and the Defendants’ land, and thus, the Defendants ought to be deemed to possess a b
B. The Defendants asserted that they bring soil and spawned dyke.