토지인도등
1. The part of the judgment of the court of first instance against the principal lawsuit shall be revoked;
2. The plaintiff (Counterclaim defendant)'s claim on the principal lawsuit is dismissed.
3...
1. Basic facts
A. On April 9, 2004, the Plaintiff acquired shares of 169.7/224.6 of the land prior to the subdivision of Yongsan-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government (hereinafter “Plaintiff’s land”) but acquired the Plaintiff’s sole ownership on January 12, 2007 pursuant to the Act on Special Cases Concerning the Partition of Co-Owned Land. The Defendant acquired the Plaintiff’s land D-220.8 square meters adjacent to the Plaintiff’s land (hereinafter “the Defendant’s land”) and the above above-mentioned building (hereinafter “the Defendant’s building”).
B. Of the Plaintiff’s land, there is a building with the first floor assembly type, second floor balcony, fence, etc., part of the Defendant’s building on the part (B) and 5.8 square meters (hereinafter “the land occupied by the Defendant”) connected each point on December 11, 11, 199, which are attached to the attached appraisal map.
[Ground for recognition] The fact that there is no dispute, Gap evidence 1-1-4, Gap evidence 3, Gap evidence 6-1 through 7-7, the result of the request for measurement and appraisal of the first instance court with respect to the Korea Cadastral Survey and appraisal of the Korea Cadastral Survey and appraisal of the Korea Cadastral Survey and appraisal of the first instance [this case's survey and appraisal of the Korea Cadastral Survey and appraisal of the Korea Cadastral Survey and appraisal of the First instance court is conducted with a voluntary boundary point without an objective boundary point confirmation procedure, and it is impossible to believe the result of the request for measurement and appraisal of the Korea Cadastral Survey and appraisal of the Korea Cadastral Survey and appraisal, but the result of appraisal by the appraiser shall be respected unless there is an obvious error, such as the method of appraisal and appraisal, against the empirical rule or unreasonable (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2009Da84608, Jan. 12, 2012). The evidence submitted by the defendant alone is insufficient to recognize that there is a serious error in the empirical rule or rationality.
2. According to the above facts of recognition as to the cause of the principal claim, the Plaintiff is the owner of the land in possession of the Defendant.