건물등철거
1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.
2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.
The plaintiff in the Gu office was the plaintiff.
1. Basic facts
A. On July 23, 1989, the Plaintiff acquired ownership of the Jongno-gu Seoul Jongno-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government large 126 square meters (hereinafter “Plaintiff’s land”) and newly constructed a multi-family house with the third floor of the brick structure and the third floor on the above land on March 9, 1994 (hereinafter “Plaintiff’s housing”).
B. With respect to the Plaintiff’s land, Jongno-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government D large 152 square meters (hereinafter “Defendant’s land”) and the tobacco and tax assessment house on the Plaintiff’s land, 18 square meters and junbbes and sap assessment house (new construction on May 20, 1968; hereinafter “Defendant’s house”), the Defendant’s father-E acquired the Defendant’s ownership on June 27, 1969, and the F, who is the son, acquired the Defendant’s ownership in sequence on April 27, 1993; G on December 21, 201; and the Defendant on May 30, 2006.
C. Before the construction of the Plaintiff’s housing, a fence was installed, which is the current line between the Plaintiff’s housing and the Defendant’s housing, (hereinafter “instant fence”). However, the part of the instant fence, which was connected in turn to each point of the Plaintiff’s land indicated 5, 3, 7, 6, and 5, is being used as the part of the Defendant’s housing.
[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1, 2, and 3 (including a branch number; hereinafter the same shall apply)
2. Determination
A. According to the above facts of recognition as to the cause of the claim, the Defendant is obligated to deliver the part of the instant intrusion to the Plaintiff, the owner, and return unjust enrichment from possession, unless there are special circumstances.
B. In this case, as to the Defendant’s assertion of prescriptive acquisition, the existence of the fence of this case prior to the construction of the Plaintiff’s housing on March 9, 1994 does not conflict between the parties, and as such, F, the owner of the Defendant’s housing, at least from March 9, 1994, did not conflict between the parties.