토지인도
1. The instant lawsuit shall be dismissed.
2. The costs of the lawsuit are assessed against the defendant.
1. The Plaintiff, ex officio, determined the legitimacy of the instant lawsuit, sought the removal of the packaging part of the instant case, which was installed by the Defendant, in violation of the forest land owned by the Plaintiff, and delivery of 115 square meters of the said land.
However, there is no benefit of the lawsuit in case the purpose of the lawsuit is already realized, and in particular, it is unlawful because the benefit of the lawsuit is extinguished ex post facto even in case the purpose of the lawsuit is realized.
I would like to say.
(2) On January 10, 2003, the Plaintiff filed the instant lawsuit against the Defendant for removal and delivery of the land of this case as part of the building of this case’s 202Da57904, which was located within the boundary of the instant forest and land owned by the Defendant, and the Defendant removed the part of the instant lawsuit during the instant lawsuit while recognizing the fact that the building was affected by the instant forest and land. However, the Defendant removed the packaging part of this case’s surface while the Plaintiff requested removal of the packaging part and delivery of the land of this case to the Plaintiff. According to the purport of the entire pleadings, the Plaintiff was a co-owner with 2805 shares out of the instant forest and land, and pursuant to the purport of the entire pleadings, the Plaintiff was a co-owner with the 714mm2 of the instant forest and land.
According to the above facts of recognition, the purpose of the plaintiff was already realized by litigation.
As such, the lawsuit of this case has no interest in the lawsuit.
2. Thus, the lawsuit of this case is dismissed as it is unlawful. However, since the plaintiff's act as the losing party was necessary at the time of such act, the defendant is borne by the winning party pursuant to the latter part of Article 99 of the Civil Procedure Act.