beta
Text
1. The Defendant (Counterclaim Plaintiff) against the Plaintiff (Counterclaim Defendant)
A. Attached Form 1,643 square meters of forests and fields C, and 569 square meters of D forest land in Gyeongdong-gun.
Reasons
Facts of recognition
On May 17, 1989, the Plaintiff completed the registration of transfer of ownership on the ground of donation made on May 11, 1989, with respect to C forest land of 1,643 square meters and D forest land of 569 square meters (hereinafter “each land of this case”).
From around 1958 to the point of each of the instant lands, the Defendant acquired, in sequence, the right to dispose of the land of the attached Table 1, 2, 3, 4, 18, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, and 11 of the housing site of 11 square meters on the ground level and 4,5,6, 7, 7, 8, 9, 10, 18, and 4 of the same drawings and 4,6, 8, 9, 10, 18, and 20 square meters on the ground level (hereinafter referred to as “each of the instant buildings”), among the instant lands, the portion of the instant land connected with 20 square meters on the ground level (hereinafter referred to as “the instant land”) and the portion of the instant land attached Table 2, 18, 19, 20, 216, 17, and 27).
[Ground of recognition] Fact-finding without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1 and 2 (including additional number), Eul evidence Nos. 3, removal of judgment as to the claim of main claim of the entire pleadings, and the above facts of recognition as to the claim for extradition, the plaintiff can seek a removal of disturbance against the defendant who possessed the dispute of this case through each of the buildings of this case as the owner of each of the lands of this case. Thus, the defendant has a duty to remove each of the buildings of this case and deliver the part of the dispute of this case to the plaintiff.
According to the above facts, the defendant, as the disposal authority of each building of this case, occupied and used the dispute part of this case as the site of each building of this case without any specific title, thereby gaining unjust enrichment equivalent to the rent for the dispute of this case.