토지인도
1. The part against the defendant in the judgment of the first instance shall be revoked;
2. The plaintiff's claim against the above cancellation portion is dismissed.
3.
1. As to the claim for unjust enrichment equivalent to land delivery, removal of buildings, and rent
A. 1) The reasons why the court should explain this part of the facts of claim are as follows: (a) The reasons why the court should explain this part of the facts of claim are as stated in the corresponding part of the judgment of the first instance, except for the deletion of “21” under Part 2, 18, 2, 2, 3, 3, and 5); (b) As such, the transfer of land and the removal of buildings shall be cited by applying the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act; and (c) the reasons why the court should explain this part of the judgment of the first instance, 3, 8, 3, 3, 3, 3, 3 (Provided, That the “21, 3, 12, 300
(B) The reasons why the court should explain this part of the claim for unjust enrichment equivalent to the rent are as stated in the corresponding part of the judgment of the court of first instance (No. 3, No. 21 to No. 41). Thus, it is cited by applying the main text of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.
B. As to the Defendant’s assertion 1) The Defendant Plaintiff consented to the free use of the above portion of “bb” occupied by the Defendant as the site for the instant housing, etc., the Plaintiff’s claim for unjust enrichment equivalent to the Plaintiff’s land delivery, removal of the building, and rent is unreasonable.
B) On March 2, 2009, the Defendant prepared a document stating that “The Defendant shall consent to use the part of “B” owned by the Plaintiff as part of “B” land and part of “B” land owned by the Defendant, but the Defendant unilaterally closed the land owned by the Defendant, and thus the consent to use the said part of “B” land becomes null and void. (A) On March 2, 2009, the Plaintiff: (b) on March 2, 2009, indicated that “The Plaintiff shall consent to use the said part of “B” owned by the Plaintiff as part of “B” land owned by the Defendant and as part of “B” land owned by the Defendant; and (c) on March 2, 2009, the Plaintiff shall consent to use the said part as the access road site.”