토지인도
1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.
2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.
1. Facts of recognition;
A. On February 13, 1985, the Plaintiff purchased a building of 185 square meters (hereinafter “instant site”) and its ground in Seo-gu, Seo-gu, Seo-gu, Seo-gu, Seo-gu, and completed the registration of ownership transfer.
On the other hand, the Defendant, on December 10, 1976, purchased the above D large D, 218 square meters adjacent to the instant building site, and wooden cement and coagumary 51.24 square meters on its ground (hereinafter “the instant building”), and completed the registration of ownership transfer.
B. However, among the instant buildings owned by the Defendant, the part of the instant sunken building, which was built by the Plaintiff, was against the instant site owned by the Plaintiff.
[Ground of recognition] Evidence No. 1 and Evidence No. 2, and the result of the appraisal commission to the Cheongju and Vice Governor of the Korea National Land Information Corporation, the purport of the whole pleadings
2. According to the facts found in the preceding paragraph as to the cause of the claim, the defendant is obligated to remove the affected building of this case and deliver the land in this case to the plaintiff, except in extenuating circumstances.
3. The defendant's defense and judgment on it
A. Since the Defendant’s defense purchased and owned the above D large scale 218 square meters and the instant building on December 10, 1976, the Defendant occupied the said building and the instant dispute land in peace and public performance for not less than 20 years up to the present time, it acquired by prescription pursuant to Article 245(1) of the Civil Act, and accordingly, it cannot respond to the Plaintiff’s request.
B. Determination 1) In the process of purchasing and occupying a site together with a building on the ground, if the purchaser believed that part of the adjoining land belongs to the site that he/she acquired and occupied a part of the adjoining land by mistake as the purchaser did not accurately confirm the boundary line with the adjoining land and thus, barring any special circumstance, the possession of the adjoining land is also deemed possession with the intention of ownership, barring special circumstances (see Supreme Court Decision 92Da284, May 26, 1992; 92Da284, 91Da2851, 2868, May 26, 199).