건물철거, 토지인도 및 부당이득반환
1. The judgment of the court of first instance is modified as follows.
Defendant (Appointed Party) and Appointors shall be the Plaintiff, and 1 Seoul.
1. The reasons for the court’s explanation concerning this case are as follows: each of the “defendants” in the judgment of the court of first instance shall be deemed to be each “defendants and designated persons”; each of the “Defendants” in the judgment of the court of first instance shall be deemed to be “ March 6, 2014”; and each of the “ March 6, 2017” in the first instance judgment shall be deemed to be “ March 6, 2014.” In addition to adding the judgment mentioned in the second instance judgment, it is identical to the entry of the reasons for the judgment of the court of first instance in
2. The Defendant, based on the cadastral status survey conducted on August 29, 1987, established a brick at a place less than 50 cm away from the boundary line of the instant land. As such, the Defendant asserted that the result of the survey and appraisal conducted by the first instance trial appraiser that the instant structure owned by the Defendant and the designated parties infringed on the instant land owned by the Plaintiff, while the result of the survey and appraisal conducted by the first instance trial appraiser of the Seoul Central Land Information Corporation, the result of the request by the vice governor of the first instance trial by the Seoul Central Land Information Corporation cannot be deemed to be different from the fact, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge the Defendant’s assertion
Therefore, we cannot accept the defendant's argument.
3. In conclusion, the judgment of the first instance is just, but the appellate court is unable to maintain it as it is because the defendant (appointed party) is selected as the appointed party. Thus, it is decided to modify the judgment of the first instance as ordered by the order and it is so decided as per Disposition.