컨테이너철거
1. The Defendant connects the Plaintiff with each point of the attached Form 1, 2, 3, 4, and 1 among the land size of 7,692 square meters in Chungcheongnam-si.
According to the reasoning of the judgment as to the cause of the claim, Gap evidence Nos. 1, 2, and 5 (including a provisional number; hereinafter the same shall apply) and the result of the appraisal commission to the director of the Korea Land Information Corporation, and the purport of the entire pleadings, it is acknowledged that the Plaintiff is the owner of 7,692m2 (hereinafter the “instant land”), and the container installed by the Defendant is over 715m2 in Chungcheongnam-si adjacent to the instant land and the instant land, and in detail, part of the container is located in the area of 4m2 in the ship, which connects each point of 1,2,3,4, and 1 of the instant land in sequence.
According to the above facts, since the defendant installed a container on the land owned by the plaintiff without a special title, the defendant is obligated to remove the container located in the above part to the plaintiff.
The defendant's assertion argues that the defendant's above claim is groundless since he did not receive the construction cost due to the failure of building owners on around 2003 while the defendant was conducting remodeling works on the whole building existing on the land of this case for the purpose of exercising the right of retention. Accordingly, the plaintiff's above claim is groundless.
Only the descriptions or images of the evidence Nos. 1 through 5 with respect to the building on the instant land are difficult to recognize that the Defendant lawfully exercised the right of retention until now, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it.
[No ground exists to possess the land that is not a building on the ground of the right of retention on the building. In addition, even if the Defendant’s claim on the secured claim of the right of retention is based on the Defendant’s assertion, it occurred in around 2003, and the exercise of the right of retention does not affect the progress of the extinctive prescription of the right of retention (Article 326 of the Civil Act, and the secured claim is already extinctive prescription at the time of the expiration of 15 years from