토지인도 등
1. All appeals by the Defendants are dismissed.
2. The costs of appeal are assessed against the Defendants.
Purport of claim and appeal
1.
1. Determination on the cause of the claim
A. The following facts may be acknowledged in full view of the following facts: (a) there is no dispute between the parties; or (b) the entries and shapes of evidence A Nos. 1 and 2; (c) the results of the survey and appraisal conducted by the first instance appraiser H; and (d) the overall purport of the pleadings conducted by the
1) The Plaintiff is the Plaintiff’s land in Gwangju City D (hereinafter “instant land”).
The area was 528 square meters, but on August 27, 2009, 197 square meters out of which was divided into FF land in Gwangju City.
(2) Of the above land, Defendant B owned 455/528 shares, and Defendant B owned 73/528 shares in the above land. Defendant B and his husband owned 73/528 shares in the above land. Defendant B and his husband were the owner of G land adjacent to the above G land. Defendant B and their husband resided in the housing unit of the above G land, and deposited each stone shed (hereinafter “the instant stone axis”) on the line connecting each point of 3,13,10 of the annexed drawings in sequence 13,40 and 7 of the same drawings, each of which was connected in order to each point of 1,2,3,3,10,11,12, and 1 of the aforementioned drawings, each of which was connected on the line connected each point of 3,13,7,6,54, and 32,000 square meters of land (hereinafter “the instant land”).
B. We examine the above facts. According to the above facts, the defendants, without legitimate title, he stockpiled the stone axis of this case on the land of this case where the plaintiff has co-ownership, and occupied and used the land 1 and 2 of this case. The plaintiff can seek delivery of the land 1 and 2 of this case and removal of the stone axis of this case against the defendants as preservation act. Thus, the defendants are obligated to deliver the land 1 and 2 of this case to the plaintiff and remove the stone axis of this case.
2. The Defendants’ assertion 1 is first relevant to the development of K-si in Gwangju.