토지인도
1. The defendant marks 1, 2, 3, 4, and 1 of the annexed drawings among the lands listed in paragraph 5 of the annexed list to the plaintiff A.
1. Facts of recognition;
A. On December 3, 2009, Plaintiff B completed the registration of transfer of ownership on the grounds of donation on December 2, 2009 with respect to each land listed in [Attachment List Nos. 1 and 2].
B. On December 3, 2009, Plaintiff A completed the registration of transfer of ownership on the ground of donation on December 3, 2009 with respect to each land listed in [Attachment List Nos. 3, 4, and 5].
C. The Defendant occupies each parcel of land listed in the separate sheet and uses it for the purpose of cultivating crops, etc., and uses a provisional building (hereinafter “instant provisional building”) on the part indicating the drawings on the land listed in the separate sheet No. 5 of the attached sheet.
[Ground of recognition] The fact that there is no dispute, Gap's 1 through 3, the purport of the whole pleading
2. Determination on the plaintiffs' claims
A. According to the above facts of recognition, the Defendant is obligated to deliver each land listed in paragraphs 1 and 2 of the attached list Nos. 1 and 2 owned by the Plaintiff B to the Plaintiff, and each land listed in the attached list Nos. 3, 4, and 5 owned by the Plaintiff to the Plaintiff A, and to remove the building of this case to the Plaintiff A.
B. The defendant is merely cultivating crops by occupying part of each land listed in the separate sheet, and does not occupy the whole land. Thus, it is unreasonable to seek delivery of the whole land. However, the defendant asserts that the part of the land of this case is cultivated by planting crops, such as various trees and vegetables, etc. between 50 years and 50 years, and the defendant asserts that part of the land of this case is possessed, but the part of the land is not specified, it is reasonable to deem that the defendant occupies each land listed in the separate sheet. Thus, this part of the defendant's argument is without merit.
3. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices, on the ground that each of the claims of the plaintiffs in this case is reasonable.