경계칸막이(벽)철거 등
1. The defendant shall be the plaintiff.
(a) KRW 2,880,692 as well as 5% per annum from November 12, 2019 to December 13, 2019; and
1. The facts of recognition E set up a boundary partitions (hereinafter “instant boundary partitions”) inside the Gangnam-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government building F, which was owned by it, and divided into D and G, the following subparagraph D, which was the Plaintiff on March 2003, and subparagraph G leased to the Defendant on January 2004, respectively.
After that, around August 2007, the plaintiff purchased No. D and the defendant purchased No. G, and around September 2007, the plaintiff and the defendant completed the registration of ownership transfer, respectively.
In the appellate court (Seoul Central District Court 2008Na29832) of the case in which the plaintiff filed a claim against the defendant for the removal of the boundary partitions ("former case"), etc. ("Seoul Central District Court 2008Na29832), the court decided on April 9, 2009 that the defendant removed the boundary partitions of this case to the plaintiff, delivered the store 0.80 square meters to the plaintiff, delivered the store 0.80 square meters, and paid unjust enrichment calculated at the rate of 32,904 won each month from September 18, 2007 to the completion of delivery. The above judgment was finalized on April 24, 2009.
On September 8, 2009, the Seoul Central District Court Decision 2009Kadan1847, on the previous case, a decision was made to confirm that the amount of the litigation cost to be repaid to the defendant was KRW 1,740,069, and the said decision was served on the plaintiff on October 12, 2009.
On July 27, 2019, the Defendant removed the instant boundary partitions in accordance with the purport of the previous judgment, delivered the Plaintiff a 0.80 square meters and installed a new boundary partitions.
On the other hand, the Defendant’s sewage pipe (a), hot water pipe (b), and air-water pipe (c) which have been separated from G are installed by breaking part of the Plaintiff’s Category D, as shown in the separate sheet.
[Reasons for Recognition: Facts without dispute, Gap 1, 2, 7, the purport of the whole pleadings]
2. Determination
A. According to the purport of the judgment of the previous case on the claim for restitution of unjust enrichment, the defendant is in line with the boundary column of this case from September 18, 2007.