토지사용료
1.The judgment of the first instance court, including a claim extended in the trial, shall be modified as follows:
The defendant.
1. Facts of recognition;
A. The Plaintiff is the owner of CJ 1712 square meters (hereinafter “instant land”).
B. On March 2, 1997, the Defendant purchased from the Plaintiff a building indicated in the attached list on the ground of the instant land (hereinafter “instant building”) and possessed the instant land as the site for the instant building up to the present day.
C. The Defendant purchased the instant building and paid the Plaintiff a white 1 f.m. (80 kg permae, hereinafter the same) each year in the fee, and paid 2 f.m. in the annual fee from 2000 to 1998. The above fee has not been paid since 198 to 200.
[Ground of recognition] Each entry of Gap evidence Nos. 1, 2, and 6 (including paper numbers), and the purport of the whole pleading
2. Determination
A. According to the above facts, the defendant is obligated to pay to the plaintiff the sum calculated at the rate of 20% per annum from May 9, 2014 to the day of complete payment under the Act on Special Cases concerning the Promotion, etc. of Legal Proceedings, which is the day following the delivery of a copy of the complaint of this case, to the day of complete payment, as the defendant occupied the land of this case as the site for the building of this case, and the sum of 20% per annum from 2004 to 2013 as requested by the plaintiff (the quality cannot be determined by the party's will, and it shall be referred to as "brue" under Article 375 (1) of the Civil Act) and the sum calculated by the rate of 20% per annum under the Act on Special Cases
B. In addition, the plaintiff may claim the future in preparation for the case where the above white paper is impossible after the closing of the argument in this case, and this is in a relationship between the above white paper claim and simple consolidation. As long as the defendant's whereabouts cannot be known, it is deemed necessary for the plaintiff to seek the future claim in advance. According to the evidence No. 7, the average price of 1000 Gama which is nearest to the date of the closing of argument in this case as of August 29, 2014 can be recognized as the fact that the average price of 10,000 Gama is 20,000, and the defendant is not able to enforce the above white paper against the plaintiff.