건물철거 및 토지인도
1. The Defendants indicated in the attached Form No. 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 14, among the land areas of 731 square meters in Boan-si D, Boan-si.
1. Facts of recognition;
A. The Plaintiff is the owner of D 731 square meters (hereinafter “instant land”). The Defendants owned and used a 146 square meters of the wall outside the wall of the instant land (hereinafter “the instant building”) in line with each of the following points, among the instant land, in the following order: (a) the Plaintiff owned and used a bridge, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 19, and 146 square meters of the building outside the wall of the instant land (hereinafter “the instant building”).
B. The Defendants transferred KRW 150,000 to the Plaintiff at the beginning of 2013, and KRW 170,000 to the beginning of each year from 2014 to 2017.
C. While the Defendants intended to purchase the instant land, the Plaintiff notified the Defendants of the removal of the instant building by December 31, 2017, if the Defendants did not intend to purchase the instant land on October 25, 2017.
【Facts without any dispute, Gap 1, 8, and the purport of the whole pleadings】
2. The assertion and judgment
A. According to the above facts finding as to the cause of the claim, the Defendants are obliged to remove the instant building and deliver the instant land to the Plaintiff, barring special circumstances, as they interfere with the exercise of ownership of the instant land by owning and using the instant building on the instant land.
B. As to the Defendants’ assertion, the Defendants asserted to the effect that the Defendants were unable to comply with the Plaintiff’s claim on the ground that an implied lease agreement was concluded between the Plaintiff and the Plaintiff with the content that the Defendants would make the Plaintiff use of the instant land on an oral basis by paying the amount equivalent to 1-man rice as annual rent
The sole basis of the evidence Nos. 4-4 and 8-2 of the evidence Nos. 4-4 and 8-2 is insufficient to acknowledge that a lease contract was concluded between the Plaintiff and the Defendants as alleged by the Defendants, and there is no other evidence
Even if a lease contract was concluded as alleged by the Defendants, it does not have a fixed period.