beta
Text
1. The Defendant: (a) is one of the B 128 square meters in Chungcheongnam-si, Chungcheongnam-si; (b)
(a) in sequence 12, 10, 9, 11, and 12 of the Appendix.
Reasons
1. The following facts may be acknowledged, either in dispute between the parties or in each entry in Gap evidence 1 to 5 (including paper numbers), and in full view of the purport of the entire pleadings as a result of the request for surveying and appraisal to appraiser C by the appraiser C by this Court:
The Plaintiff is the owner of the B large-scale 128 square meters (hereinafter “Plaintiff’s land”). The Defendant is a single owner, such as D large-scale 118 square meters adjacent to the Plaintiff’s land, and is under the creation and operation of a public parking lot and a neighboring park.
B. According to the result of this court’s entrustment of survey and appraisal, part of the facilities of the above public parking lot now intrudes the Plaintiff’s land, and that part of the facility is a landscaping stone on the ground of 0.3 square meters in line with each of the items in the part (B) above 1.7 square meters in the ship connected each point in the attached Form No. 12, 10, 9, 11, and 12, and the part (c) above the part (B) above 1.7 square meters in line with each point in the same drawing No. 1, 12, 11, and 12.
(2) The Defendant is obligated to remove or remove each of the facilities of this case, the ownership of which is infringed on the Plaintiff’s land, and deliver the land of this case to the Plaintiff, barring any special circumstance.
3. The defendant's assertion is alleged to the purport that the plaintiff's claim is unjustifiable because the defendant is only in the process of establishing and operating a public parking lot for public interest according to lawful procedures and does not illegally occupy the plaintiff's land. However, in this case where it is evident that each of the facilities of this case is partially infringed on the plaintiff's land as seen earlier, it is difficult to recognize the defendant's assertion and its submission evidence alone as a legitimate source of right to possess the plaintiff's claim.
4. In conclusion, the plaintiff's claim of this case is reasonable, and it is so decided as per Disposition.