beta
Text
1. The plaintiff (Counterclaim defendant)'s main claim and the defendant (Counterclaim plaintiff)'s counterclaim are all dismissed.
2. The costs of lawsuit shall be.
Reasons
1. The Defendant asserts that the Plaintiff should pay KRW 30,00,000 to the Plaintiff for damages on the ground that, although the Defendant had a duty to transfer the entire ownership of KRW 1,901 square meters in Yangyang-gun, Yangyang-gun, the Gyeonggi-gun, which was divided into the Plaintiff, did not transfer part of ownership by means of document forgery, etc., but caused the Plaintiff to file a false lawsuit, etc., thereby causing mental and physical damage to the Plaintiff. However, the Plaintiff’s claim on the premise that there is no evidence to acknowledge the Plaintiff’
2. Judgment on the counterclaim
A. The Defendant’s assertion: (a) on August 20, 1987, the Defendant completed the registration of ownership transfer as to the Gyeonggi-gun E, Gyeonggi-do, 168 square meters (the instant land, which was transferred from F on December 14, 2016 to F; hereinafter the same shall apply); (b) from around 1997, the Plaintiff used the instant land, such as constructing a septic tank, etc. on the instant land without title; (c) the Plaintiff shall pay the amount equivalent to the rent arising from the use of the instant land as unjust enrichment to the Defendant; and (d) the Plaintiff shall seek payment of KRW 1,050,521, the amount equivalent to the rent arising from November 1, 2017 to October 31, 2017, the rent appraisal of which was made.
B. In full view of the contents of evidence Nos. 7, 13, and 14 and the overall purport of the film and pleading, the Plaintiff may recognize the fact that the Plaintiff constructed a septic tank, etc. on the land of this case after around 1997.
However, in full view of the above evidence, Gap evidence Nos. 18, Eul evidence Nos. 2 and 3 and the following circumstances, it is insufficient to acknowledge that the plaintiff occupied the land of this case without title. The defendant's counterclaim claim of this case premised on this premise is without merit.
1. The Plaintiff was entitled to a claim for ownership transfer registration on June 17, 1996 with respect to part of the land before the instant partition, and thus, the land of this case was divided until December 14, 2016.