토지인도
1. As to the Plaintiff’s 670 square meters of Gyeonggi-gun D Road, Defendant B indicated in the attached Form No. 24 through 33, and 24.
1. Facts recognized;
A. As to 137/670 of shares in the road indicated in the order of June 13, 2003 (hereinafter in this case), the Plaintiff completed the registration of ownership transfer as to Defendant B’s shares on March 15, 2018, respectively.
B. Among the roads of this case, there are 63 square meters in a ship (a), part (b), which connects each point of 24 through 33, and 24 of the appraisal map indicated in the order of this case. The chemical of this case is composed of 63 square meters in a fireproof frame (hereinafter “the chemical of this case”). The chemical of this case is composed of two parts surrounding Defendant B’s housing.
C. Of the instant chemical group, the appraisal on the text of the instant chemical group consisting of one square meter in each part of “bb”, “c”, and “divable” as indicated on board, and five glus of shot trees (hereinafter “the instant timber”) are planted in the said chemical group.
[Ground of recognition] Unsatisfy, Gap evidence 1 through 6, Eul evidence 1 through 4 (including additional numbers), and the result of each measurement appraisal commission to the chief of the Korea Land Information Corporation in Yang Pyeong branch of the Republic of Korea in this Court, the purport of the whole pleadings
2. The assertion and judgment
A. According to the above facts of recognition as to the cause of the claim against Defendant B, the chemical group of this case is composed of a house and a chemical group owned by the Defendant, and the chemical group of this case is owned by the Defendant. The Plaintiff, a co-owner of the road of this case, owned the chemical group of this case, and owned the chemical group of this case, thereby exclusively occupying the road of this case. The Defendant’s assertion that the chemical group of this case was not constructed by the Defendant, is not owned by the co-owners of the road of this case, and thus, cannot comply with the claim of this case.
According to the above evidence, although the defendant seems to have not established the chemical team of this case, it is recognized earlier.