건물등철거 및 토지인도
1. The defendant shall deliver to the plaintiff 109m2 prior to C in racing, and each of the annexed drawings among the above land shall be marked 1, 2, 3, 4, and 1.
1. The following facts of recognition may be found either in dispute between the parties or in full view of the respective entries in Gap evidence Nos. 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, and Eul evidence Nos. 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7 (including paper numbers) and the whole purport of the pleadings.
The Plaintiff is the owner of 109 square meters (hereinafter “instant land”). The Defendant is the owner of the instant land, which is approximately 50 square meters of housing units on the ground (hereinafter “instant building”) located on the part (A) part of the instant land, which connects each point of (a) of the attached drawing Nos. 1, 2, 3, 4, and 1 among the instant land.
B. On May 23, 2012, the Plaintiff agreed to the Defendant to remove the instant building and restore it to its original state, setting the lease period from February 11, 2012 to February 11, 2014 (hereinafter “instant lease contract”); and upon the expiration of the lease period, the Plaintiff removed the instant building to restore it to its original state.
Around that time, the Plaintiff delivered the instant land to the Defendant.
C. On April 14, 2014 and March 29, 2016, the Plaintiff: (a) removed the instant building; and (b) notified the Defendant of the removal of the instant building and the transfer of the instant land.
On March 6, 2013, the Defendant remitted to the Plaintiff KRW 700,000,000 under the name of the rent for the year 2013 portion (from February 12, 2013 to February 11, 2014), and KRW 800,000 under the name of the rent for the year 2014 portion (from February 12, 2014 to February 11, 2015) (from February 12, 2015 to February 11, 2015), and KRW 1,00,000,000 for the name of the rent for the year 2015 portion (from February 12, 2015 to February 11, 2015).
In addition, on July 7, 2016, the Defendant deposited KRW 1,150,000 on the pretext of rent for the portion of 2016 (from February 12, 2016 to February 11, 2017) of the instant land with the Plaintiff as the principal deposit.
(No. 437 of 2016). 2. Determination on the cause of the claim
A. According to the facts of the above recognition as to the removal of the building and the request for the delivery of the land, since the lease contract of this case expired, the defendant removed the building of this case to the plaintiff and removed the land of this case.