beta
Text
1. The defendant shall be the plaintiff.
A. Of the 49,174m2 of Kimpo-si B forest land, each point is 35,36,38,35 of the separate sheet No. 1.
Reasons
1. Basic facts
A. On July 14, 2017, the Plaintiff acquired ownership of B forest land 49,174m2 (hereinafter “instant land”).
B. The Defendant is established under the order of 35, 36, 38, and 35, among the land in the instant case, to 14m2, the part of the ship (i) which was connected in order prior to the Plaintiff’s acquisition of ownership of the instant land, and to 19, 20, 9 through 143, 27, 28, 14 through 148, 31, 149 through 175, 39, 149, and 39, 7, 8, 184, 183, 182, 181, 10, 179, 178, 177, 176, and 78m2, each of which was connected in order to 2,09, and 39m3 of the attached drawings.
C. The Defendant’s rent from July 14, 2017 to October 31, 2018, from the land on which the Jin land and traffic defense are installed, is KRW 3,890,070.
[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1-2, Gap evidence 2, Gap evidence 6-1 and 6-2, Gap evidence 6-1 and 6-2, the result of each commission of appraisal to the Korea Land Information Corporation, Kim Jong-po, and D, the purport of the whole pleadings
2. According to the above facts of determination as to the cause of the claim, the defendant without any title establishes part of the land of this case, which is a military installation, and occupies the part of the land of this case by establishing a military installation.
As such, the Plaintiff is obligated to remove the above traffic and medical sites and deliver the part of the land to the Plaintiff, and the Plaintiff is also obligated to pay damages for delay calculated at the rate of 15% per annum from July 14, 2017 to October 31, 2018, with the return of unjust enrichment equivalent to the rent, from July 14, 2017 to October 31, 2018, as claimed by the Plaintiff, and with regard to the amount of KRW 3,890,070, as well as the amount of delay damages calculated at the rate of 15% per annum from November 20, 20
3. If so, the plaintiff's claim of this case is justified and it is so decided as per Disposition.