공장철거 및 토지인도
1. The defendant shall be the plaintiff.
A. The attached appraisal map No. 24, 23, 40 to 43, 35 to 39, among the land size of 1,392 square meters in Seosan-si.
1. Facts of recognition;
A. The Plaintiff owns one-half of the 1,392 square meters in Seosan-si (hereinafter “instant 1”) and one-half of the 6,098 square meters in a factory site in Seosan-si.
B. The Defendant owns E’s land for land E, 1,906 square meters adjacent to the land of this case and its ground assembly buildings, steel framed buildings, and gll extraction facilities. Some of the above buildings and facilities connected each point of the attached Table No. 24, 23, 40 through 43, 35 through 39, 24 among the land of this case, connected each point of the attached Table No. 1, 23, 40 through 43, 35 through 39, 24, and 104 square meters in part, and the attached Table No. 13 through 20, 44 through 52, and 13 among the land of this case 2 of this case.
[Reasons for Recognition] A without dispute, entry of Gap evidence 2, result of on-site inspection by this court, result of surveying and appraisal by the Korea Land Information Corporation, purport of whole pleadings
2. According to the above facts finding as to the cause of the claim, the defendant is obligated to remove the building and facilities in the section 24, 23, 40 to 43, 35 to 39, and 24 of the attached Table No. 1 among the land of this case, which connects each point of which is indicated in the attached Table No. 24, 23, 40 to 43, 35 to 39, and 24, and the attached Table No. 13 through 20, 44 to 52, and 13 among the land of this case.
3. Judgment on the defendant's assertion
A. The main point of the argument is that the defendant's building and facilities are constructed and installed lawfully, thus seeking removal of the building constitutes abuse of rights. Since the defendant and the former owner occupy each part of the above land for at least 20 years, the prescriptive acquisition has been completed.
B. As seen earlier, we cannot accept the Defendant’s assertion, inasmuch as there is no other evidence to acknowledge the Defendant’s assertion, that the building, etc. in this case, infringes on the land Nos. 1 and 2.
4. The plaintiff's claim is reasonable and acceptable.