토지인도 등
1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.
2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.
The premise is that the Plaintiff is the owner of the instant land, who completed the registration of ownership transfer on the ground of sale on February 28, 2005 with respect to the land of 3,324 square meters (hereinafter “instant land”) prior to the Gangseo-gun, Gangwon-gu, Gangwon-do on March 2, 2005, and the Defendant is the owner of adjoining land who completed the registration of ownership transfer on the ground of sale on April 30, 1970 with respect to the land of 3,012 square meters adjacent to the instant land on December 24, 1982, and the Defendant is the owner of adjoining land, who was in contact with the instant land on April 30, 1970.
In the boundary area of the land adjacent to the instant case, the embankment is located from mountain to mountain, and the embankment has a considerable amount of stones, and there is a trace of cutting trees at a place.
The above embankment mainly passes the adjacent land except for the part of “B” and “C” (hereinafter the above parts collectively referred to as “the pertinent land”), for which the Plaintiff seeks removal, and the Plaintiff installed a concrete drainage pipe at the bottom of the embankment depending on the boundary of the instant land.
【As a result of the appraiser E’s survey and appraisal of evidence Nos. 1 and 2, the Plaintiff asserted the purport of the entire pleadings in light of around 2004, the Defendant occupied and used a embankment without permission of F at the time of the pertinent land’s possession on the land at issue, such as constructing a dynaf tree, etc. on the upper part of the land, and conducting a deep-sykeing business, thereby interfering with the Plaintiff’s exercise of ownership by purchasing the instant land from F.
Therefore, the defendant is obligated to remove the embankment installed on the land at issue and deliver the land at issue to the plaintiff.
(Removal and Delivery Claim) On the other hand, since the defendant occupied and used the land in question and obtained pecuniary benefits equivalent to the rent therefor, and caused damages to the plaintiff equivalent to the same amount, the defendant is obligated to return it to the plaintiff as unjust enrichment.
Therefore, the defendant's rent for the past 10 years to the plaintiff.