토지인도
1. The part seeking the removal of building wastes in the instant lawsuit shall be dismissed.
2. The defendant shall be the plaintiff.
(a) annex.
1. Indication of claims: It shall be as shown in attached Form; and
2. As to the part regarding the claim for collection in the lawsuit in this case, in cases where the administrative agency can realize the performance of the duty of substitutional act, such as removal of buildings or removal of water by means of administrative vicarious execution, by examining the part regarding the claim for collection in this case ex officio, and by recognizing the procedure for administrative vicarious execution under related Acts and subordinate statutes, it is not possible to seek a separate performance of the duty by means of civil procedure. As such, Supreme Court Decision 2016Da213916 Decided April 28, 2017, Article 74 of the State Property Act, including Supreme Court Decision 201Da213916 Decided April 28, 201, provides that the State property may be removed or other necessary measures may be taken by applying mutatis mutandis the Administrative Vicarious Execution Act in cases where it occupies the State property or constructs facilities.
Ultimately, the part concerning the claim for collection among the lawsuits of this case is unlawful as there is no benefit or need for protection of rights.
3. Judgment without holding any pleadings on the part of the instant lawsuit concerning the delivery of land and the claim for return of unjust enrichment (Article 208(3)1 of the Civil Procedure Act)