분묘굴이 등
1. The part concerning the claim of money among the lawsuits of this case shall be dismissed.
2. The plaintiff's remaining claims are dismissed.
3. The costs of the lawsuit.
1.The following facts of recognition do not conflict between the Parties:
The forest land D 4091 square meters (hereinafter “the forest land before subdivision”) was owned by the Defendant. On November 11, 2002, F commenced the voluntary auction procedure for the forest land before subdivision, and F completed the registration of ownership transfer on July 10, 2003 at the bid of the said forest land. G purchased the said forest land from the said F, and completed the registration of ownership transfer on August 26, 2003. The Plaintiff purchased the said forest land from the said F, and completed the registration of ownership transfer on August 26, 2003. The Plaintiff purchased the forest land of 1786 square meters (hereinafter “instant forest”), D forest 2089 square meters, and H183 square meters from each divided forest from the said forest before subdivision, and completed the registration of ownership transfer under each of its names on April 17, 2009.
B. Among the forest land in this case, the following points are connected in order to each point of 12, 8, 19, 10, 11, 24, 16, 15, 14, 13, and 12, among the forest land in this case: (a) 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 25, 26, 27, and 28; (b) 14 square meters inside the ship connected each point of 12, 8, 19, 10, 11, 24, 16, 15, 14, 14, 14, 14, 14, 14, 14, 14, 14, 14, 14, 13, 13, and 12; (c) Da, part 36, 38, 39, and 40.
C. Meanwhile, the Plaintiff filed a lawsuit against the Defendant on the grounds that (i) the India of the instant part of the forest land as the instant court No. 2012Ga3834, and (ii) the removal of the instant E, (f) the instant part of the ground b, and the removal of the stone b, and (iii) the return of unjust enrichment equivalent to the rent for the instant part b, and the said court acquired the right to graveyard on February 20, 2013 by the Defendant.