건물명도(인도)
1. The defendant is not less than 185§³ in Dongdaemun-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government with respect to the plaintiffs.
A. Each point is indicated in the Annex 8, 7, and 6.
1. Basic facts
A. On August 20, 2010, the Plaintiffs are co-owners of each 1/2 share of the Dongdaemun-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government D large 185 square meters (hereinafter “Plaintiff’s land”). The Defendant is a person who acquired the ownership of E large 172 square meters adjacent to the above land on June 4, 2010 (hereinafter “Defendant’s land”).
B. A cement brick fence fenced with a height of 1.6 meters, which is part of the Defendant’s land, (hereinafter “instant fence”) is constructed on the line connected each point of the Plaintiff’s land indicated in the Annex 8, 7, and 6 in sequence. Accordingly, the Defendant occupied the part “B” part of the Plaintiff’s land, which connected each point of the items indicated in the Annex 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, and 5 in sequence, among the Plaintiff’s land (hereinafter “instant real estate”).
[Ground of recognition] A without dispute; entries and images of Gap evidence 1 through 6 (including paper numbers); the results of the measurement and appraisal commission and the purport of the whole pleadings as to the Seoul Eastern Vice-Governor of the Korea Land Information Corporation on March 8, 2018
2. Determination
A. According to the above facts of determination as to the cause of the claim, insofar as the Defendant did not have the right to possess the instant real estate, the Plaintiff’s land owner is obligated to remove the instant fence and deliver the instant real estate to the Plaintiff.
B. As to the Defendant’s assertion, (i) the Plaintiff and the first unit of the Defendant’s land created a housing complex before and after 1955; (ii) the lower part of the fence of the instant case appears to have been constructed around that time; and (iii) the Plaintiff and the Defendant’s land were divided from the Seoul Dongdaemun-gu F land around January 6, 1958.
On the other hand, the fence of this case was installed on July 25, 1986 after the completion of the previous building on the Plaintiff’s land, or on September 14, 1987 by surveying around September 14, 1987.
In other words, the wall of this case and the following embankments were actually bordered by the plaintiff and the defendant's land after the point of each installation.