건물철거 및 대지인도
1. The defendant shall be the plaintiff.
(a) Of the lands listed in the separate sheet, each point of the sequence 16, 17, 18, 19, 16, among the lands listed in the separate sheet.
The Plaintiff acquired the ownership of the land indicated in the separate sheet on October 20, 2014 in the part of the claim for delivery of the instant land and the instant building. The fact that the Defendant built the instant building and used and profit from the instant building and the instant occupied land among the land indicated in the separate sheet is not disputed between the parties, or can be acknowledged by the entry of the evidence No. 1, and the result of the request for measurement and appraisal of the Korea Land Information Corporation and the purport of the entire pleadings.
Therefore, unless there are special circumstances, the defendant is obliged to remove the building of this case against the plaintiff and deliver the occupied land of this case to the plaintiff.
The Defendant, at around 40 years before 20 years of the building of this case, was using and making profits from the land occupied of this case. However, even though there was no objection from the owner of the land listed in the separate sheet, the Plaintiff’s claim for the removal of the building of this case and delivery of the land occupied of this case was asserted as abuse of rights, as it acquired ownership of the land listed in the separate sheet on October 20, 2014.
If the exercise of the right can be seen as an abuse of the right, the subjective purpose of the exercise of the right is to inflict pain on the other party and to inflict damages on the other party, and there is no benefit to the person who exercises the right, and the exercise of the right should be objectively viewed as a violation of social order.
Unless such a case does not constitute an abuse of right, even though damage to the other party is significantly higher than the profit that the person who has exercised the right is entitled to receive by exercising the right, such circumstance alone does not constitute abuse of right.
(Supreme Court Decision 2009Da58173 Decided February 25, 2010). The instant case returned to the Health Center, and the Plaintiff purchased the land indicated in the separate sheet and tried to construct a building on that land.