토지인도 등
1. The defendant shall be the plaintiff.
A. Of the 312 square meters in Seosan-si, the attached Table 15, 10 through 14, 2, 3, and 15 shall each apply to the appraisal reference map.
1. Facts of recognition;
A. On October 28, 1997, the Defendant completed the registration of ownership transfer based on the successful bid on August 29, 1997 with respect to D large 134 square meters.
B. On February 2, 2000, the Plaintiff completed the registration of transfer of ownership on the ground of sale on January 10, 2000 with respect to C & 312 square meters adjacent to the above D land (hereinafter “instant land”).
C. The Defendant’s order No. 1-A around July 2012
From that time, each part of the land indicated in the port (hereinafter “each part of the instant land”) is newly constructed on the ground, and from that time, the above part of each land is occupied, used, while managing buildings and fences on the ground of each of the above land.
[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, entries and images of Gap 1 through 3, the result of the measurement and appraisal by the Korea Land Information Corporation, the purport of the whole pleadings
2. Determination as to the cause of claim
A. According to the facts of the above recognition of removal and delivery request, the defendant is obligated to remove the buildings and fences on each of the lands of this case to the plaintiff, who is the owner of the land of this case, and deliver each of the above lands to the plaintiff.
B. According to Article 201(1) of the Civil Act, prior to July 6, 2017, the possessor in good faith shall be deemed to have acquired the fruits of possession. Meanwhile, the gains obtained by using the land shall be the same as the fruits arising therefrom. Thus, even if the possessor in good faith occupies and uses another’s land without any legal cause and thereby causes damage to another person, he/she does not have any obligation to return the gains arising from such possession and use to that other person (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 86Da1996, 1997, Sept. 22, 1987). In full view of the evidence mentioned above and the purport of the entire pleadings in Gap evidence No. 4, the Defendant erred in the boundary restoration survey by the Plaintiff before July 7, 2017.