logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 의정부지방법원 2020.01.29 2019가단3110
토지인도
Text

1. The defendant shall be the plaintiff.

A. Of the 1,97 square meters prior to Yangju-si, each of the attached Form 1 Map No. 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 3, and 17.

Reasons

Basic Facts

A. On September 12, 2001, the Plaintiff: (a) on September 12, 2001, the same year as to D 1,997 square meters (hereinafter “instant land”).

8.5.The owner who has completed the registration of ownership transfer based on the sale.

B. On the ground of this case, there is a fence on the ground of the defendant's ownership, ① a fence on the ground of 4m2m2 with the order of 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 21, 3, and 17, ② a fence on the ground of 2m2m2 with the aforementioned drawings successively connected each point of 22, 23, 24, 25, 8, and 22m2 with the above drawings, ③ a rainwater of 26,29, 28, 27, 9, and 26m2 with the above drawings (hereinafter referred to as "the above fence and rain water") and (4) a fence on the ground of 1m20m2 with the order of 20m2, 27m2, 27m2, and 17m2 with each of the above drawings attached hereto.

C. Meanwhile, the amount equivalent to the rent from February 21, 2012 to October 21, 2019 of the instant wall line and rainwater storage area is KRW 371,200, and the amount equivalent to the monthly rent as of October 21, 2019 is KRW 4,700.

[Reasons for Recognition] The facts without dispute, entry of Gap evidence 1, and the result of each request for surveying and appraisal of the two main branch offices of the Korea Land Information Corporation in this Court, the judgment as to the grounds for the request as a result of the request for surveying and appraisal of the E (State) branch offices in this Court

A. According to the above facts, the defendant, as the owner of the land of this case, is obligated to remove the obstacles of this case and deliver each land of the above obstacles to the plaintiff, who asserts the removal of interference with the ownership as the owner of the land of this case.

B. Furthermore, we examine the amount of unjust enrichment that the Defendant should return to the Plaintiff.

arrow