건물등철거
1. The Defendant, in the order of order, shall each point of the Plaintiff among the 428m2 and the 1,2,3,4, and 1 of the attached drawings in Bupyeong-si Co., Ltd. and the 428m2.
1. Among the buildings owned by the Defendant in determining the cause of the claim, the facts that the part of the toilets, warehouses, and the stairs room, as indicated in the order, is 428.8 square meters in Seocheon-si owned by the Plaintiff, and thus, there is no dispute between the parties. Thus, barring any special circumstance, the Defendant is obligated to remove the above part of the above part of the ground toilets, warehouses, and the part of the above part of the ground stairs in the order to the Plaintiff seeking the exclusion of interference based on ownership, and to deliver each part of the above part to the Plaintiff.
2. Judgment on the defendant's assertion
A. As to this, the defendant defense that the building and the land owned by the plaintiff were owned by the defendant's father D around August 9, 1988 at the time when the building owned by the defendant was set up, and that the legal superficies under the customary law was established because the building and the land owned by the plaintiff became owned by the defendant's father and became different owners due to sale and purchase or other causes. Thus, there is no evidence to support that the above building and the land were owned by D and the owner became different owners. Thus, the defendant's defense is without merit.
(A) According to the description of evidence No. 1-2, the registration of preservation of ownership in the name of the defendant on August 9, 1988 is recognized only when the registration of preservation of ownership has been made on the above building).
Then, although the plaintiff's claim constitutes an abuse of right, the plaintiff's claim is to seek removal of the building and delivery of each part of the above ship against the defendant. subjectively, the plaintiff does not have any profit to the defendant while the purpose of the exercise of right is to inflict pain and damage on the defendant, and there is no evidence to acknowledge that the exercise of right is in violation of social order. Thus, the defendant's defense is without merit.
3. In conclusion, the plaintiff's claim is justified and it is so decided as per Disposition.