beta
(영문) 울산지방법원 2020.02.14 2019가단118349

건물등철거

Text

1. The defendant shall be the plaintiff.

A. The land for gas stations located in Ulsan-gun D, Ulsan-gun, 3,373 square meters above ground E-ho, and sculptures.

Reasons

1. Basic facts

A. On July 4, 2003, the Plaintiff acquired ownership of 3,373 square meters of the land for gas stations in Ulsan-gun, Ulsan-gun (hereinafter “instant land”).

B. On March 9, 2017, the Defendant acquired 34 square meters in each of the instant buildings (hereinafter “each of the instant buildings”) of E-Ste reinforced concrete on the instant land, and of lux roof 20 square meters in a luxial lux roof, and of Fho Lake reinforced concrete and luxial lux roof, and of a luxial luxial lux roof.

C. Of the instant land, the rent is KRW 2,094,525 from March 9, 2017 to August 8, 2019 for the site on which each of the instant buildings is located (hereinafter “each of the instant sites”), and the rent is KRW 72,225 for the following month.

[Reasons for Recognition] Each entry of Gap evidence 1 through 7 (including each number), the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination:

A. The defendant asserts that he has the legal superficies under customary law as to the site of this case, and therefore, he has the right to possess each site of this case, but there is no evidence to acknowledge it.

B. Therefore, the Defendant, the owner of each building of this case, has the obligation to remove each building of this case to the Plaintiff, the owner of each building of this case, and deliver each building of this case to the Plaintiff, and to pay 2,094,525 won and its amount equivalent to the rent of 12% per annum prescribed in the Special Les Act on the Promotion, etc. of Litigation from September 3, 2019 to the day following the delivery of the copy of the complaint of this case to the day of complete payment, and to pay the amount of unjust enrichment equivalent to the rent of 72,225 won per month from August 9, 2019 to the day after delivery of each site of this case.

3. The plaintiff's claim for the conclusion is justified and acceptable.