토지인도
1. The defendant shall be the plaintiff.
A. Of the land size of 402 square meters in Dongcheon-si, Seoul, the attached Form No. 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 14, 13, 12, 11, 3.
1. The Plaintiff is the owner of the said land, who completed the registration of ownership transfer on December 18, 1980 with respect to the land of Jungcheon-si, Seoul Metropolitan City 402 square meters (hereinafter “Plaintiff’s land”).
The Defendant, as the owner of 45 square meters adjacent to the above land (hereinafter “Defendant’s land”), occupied a fence consisting of waste building materials, etc. in accordance with the separate sheet Nos. 3, 11, 12, 13, 14, and 9, the Defendant occupied 45 square meters inside the ship (hereinafter “instant land”) connected in order to each point of 3,4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 14, 13, 12, 11, and 3, which is part of the Plaintiff’s land, for the purpose of gardening, etc., and owns a warehouse closed on the ground.
[Reasons for Recognition] Facts without dispute, entries in Gap evidence 1, 3, and 4 (including virtual numbers), and the purport of the whole video and pleading
2. Determination
A. (1) According to the above facts, the defendant is obligated to remove fences installed on the ground of the land at issue at issue at issue at issue at issue at issue and to transfer the land at issue at issue to the plaintiff, who is the owner of the land at issue at issue at issue at issue at issue at issue at issue at issue at issue at issue at issue, and to return the rent at a reasonable level.
(2) As to this, the Defendant asserted that from August 16, 1976, he occupied the land of this case in peace and openly with his intention to own the land of this case, and that the prescription period for possession of the land of this case was completed on August 16, 1996, and thus, the Defendant cannot respond to the Plaintiff’s request.
However, the evidence submitted by the defendant alone is insufficient to recognize that the defendant has continuously occupied the land of this case from 1976 to 1996, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it.
Therefore, the defendant's defense of the acquisition by prescription cannot be accepted.
[The defendant's assertion as above is based on the completion of the statute of limitations for possession of the land at issue of this case against the plaintiff.