토지인도
1. The Defendant (Counterclaim Plaintiff) against the Plaintiff (Counterclaim Defendant)
(a) Indication 1, 2, 2 of the annexed drawings on the land of 1196 square meters in Daegu-gun, Daegu-gun.
A principal lawsuit and a counterclaim shall be deemed simultaneously.
1. Basic facts
A. The Plaintiff is the owner who completed the registration of ownership transfer on June 8, 1994, on the land of 1,196 square meters in Daegu-gun, Daegu-gun (hereinafter “instant land”). < Amended by Act No. 4795, May 19, 1994>
Since then, the plaintiff leased the land of this case to D on the date in the irregular border.
B. On July 27, 2013, the Defendant leased the instant land from D with a period of KRW 1.1 million per annum, from June 10, 2013 to June 10, 2018.
The Defendant, on the ground of the instant land, has installed two plastic greenhouses listed in the paragraph (a) of Section 1 (hereinafter “instant plastic greenhouses”) on the ground of the instant land, and cultivated drillings and sprinks without any documentation.
On the other hand, D died around October 2016.
C. On July 14, 2018, the Defendant’s each of the instant letters to the effect that “I will grow up until October 15, 2018,” and “I will do so.”
D. The Defendant remitted total of KRW 1,00,000 to the Plaintiff, including KRW 550,00 on July 20, 2018 and KRW 4,50,000 on July 22, 2018. [Grounds for recognition] The Defendant did not dispute any dispute, and the evidence Nos. 1, 2, 3, and 4 (if the number is available, including the number; hereinafter the same shall apply).
(1) Each entry and video of subparagraph (1) and the purport of the whole pleading
2. Determination as to the claim on the principal lawsuit
A. We examine the determination on the request for removal and delivery. The Defendant, who occupies the instant land, has the duty to remove the instant plastic houses and deliver the instant land to the Plaintiff, the owner of the instant land, unless he asserts and proves his source of possession right.
As to this, the Defendant asserted that, around January 2018, the Plaintiff entered into a lease agreement with the Plaintiff on the condition that the Defendant leased KRW 1,00,000 per year the instant land for five years, but the evidence submitted by the Defendant alone is insufficient to acknowledge it, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it. Rather, according to each of the instant agreements, the Defendant’s land to the Plaintiff up to October 15, 2018.