beta
Text
1. The part of the judgment of the court of first instance against the defendant exceeding the money ordered to be paid below.
Reasons
1. Basic facts
A. On March 6, 1979, the Plaintiff succeeded to the shares of 135/1377 square meters in Nam-gu, Busan Metropolitan City C Forest and 1683 square meters, and on December 30, 1991, the Plaintiff acquired the ownership of the said land by transferring all of the shares owned from the remaining successors of the said land.
B. In establishing a sports site and a parking lot of D University in 2003, the Defendant installed drainage and fences on the ship which connects each point of 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, and 3 of the attached Form No. 1 among the above land in sequence to 7m2 in the order of each point of 3, 4, 6, 7, 8, 9, 9, 9, and 7, and attached Form No. 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, and 7 each point of 7m2 in the attached Form No. 8,8, 9, 10, 11, and 7 in sequence, the Defendant installed a legal area of 49mm2 in the c
[Ground of recognition] The fact that there is no dispute, entry of Gap Nos. 1 and 2, the result of surveying and appraising the Korea Intellectual Property Corporation by the court of first instance, the purport of the whole pleadings
2. Determination as to the cause of action
A. In full view of the above basic facts and the purport of the entire arguments as to the claim for removal, the Defendant is obliged to remove the above drainage and pents since the Defendant installed the drainage and pents on the land No. 1 of this case without permission.
In regard to this, the Defendant alleged that the Defendant had no obligation to remove the above drainage and pents since the Plaintiff implicitly consented to the use of each land of this case. Thus, it is insufficient to view that the Plaintiff implicitly consented to the use of each land as alleged by the Defendant, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge this differently. Therefore, this part of the Defendant’s assertion is without merit.
B. As to the delivery of each of the instant lands and the claim for return of unjust enrichment, the aforementioned facts and the purport of the entire pleadings are comprehensively considered.