담장철거 등
1. Of the part concerning the counterclaim in the judgment of the court of first instance, the part against the Defendant (Counterclaim Plaintiff) ordering payment below.
1. Determination as to the main claim
A. 1) The Plaintiff purchased the instant land on September 30, 2015, and completed the registration of ownership transfer on November 2, 2015. 2) On March 2, 2016, the Defendant purchased the instant land from the Cheongong-gun, Chungcheongnam-gun, Chungcheongnam-gun, and its ground buildings (hereinafter “instant building”) around the instant land, and operates a lodging establishment after completing the registration of ownership transfer on April 29, 2016.
3) On the ground connected in order to each point of the annexed drawings A, B, C, and D among the land of this case, a steel pipe fence is installed. The Defendant occupies and uses the above mar wall out of the land of this case as the parking lot for a lodging facility operated by the Defendant for the neighboring land including the part of the land in the dispute of this case at the boundary of the said mar wall. [Grounds for recognition] There is no dispute, and evidence Nos. 1 through 5, evidence Nos. 15 (if a mar number is included; hereinafter the same shall include each number; hereinafter the same shall apply), Eul evidence Nos. 1, 2, and the result of the first instance court’s request for a survey appraisal
B. According to the above facts, the Defendant interfered with the Plaintiff’s exercise of ownership by occupying and using the part of the land in the dispute in this case. Thus, the aforementioned mar wall and fence are removed, and the Defendant is obligated to deliver the part of the land in this case to the Plaintiff. 2) Accordingly, the Defendant asserted that the prescriptive prescription for the part in the dispute in this case is completed, and that it cannot comply with the Plaintiff’s claim on the ground that the prescriptive prescription for the part in the dispute in this case is completed, since the period of possession by E and the Defendant
In the general building ledger concerning the building of this case, ① the approval date of use of the building of this case is “A. 24, 1998.” As of the date of closing argument of this case, it is not sufficient to recognize that E or the Defendant occupied and used the land in this case as a parking lot for not less than 20 years, because the parking lot is written only as “A. 1m. 5m. (1m.)” as of the date of closing argument of this case.