beta
Text
1. Of the buildings No. 102 of the Seo-gu Incheon Metropolitan City Officetel No. 102, the Defendant indicated the attached Form No. 1, 2, 3, 4, 1.
Reasons
1. Basic facts
A. On December 26, 2013, the Plaintiff completed the registration of ownership transfer based on the sale due to voluntary auction on the first floor of Seo-gu Daejeon District Officetel No. 102 (181mm2 (hereinafter “the Plaintiff’s building”).
On May 10, 2010, the Defendant completed the registration of ownership transfer with respect to No. 101 (No. 95.13 square meters of the pre-paid area; hereinafter “instant Defendant building”) on the first floor of the instant officetel No. 101.
B. Meanwhile, the instant officetel was converted from a general building on November 5, 1997 to a collective building on December 14, 200, and was newly registered in the collective building ledger on February 2, 2001. The first floor of Seo-gu Daejeon, Daejeon, Seo-gu, Seoul Officetel No. 101 (hereinafter “the building before the instant subdivision”) applied for registration of change to a collective building ledger on June 7, 2002, and registered changes on June 12, 2002, and was registered as the instant Plaintiff and the Defendant building on July 4, 2002.
【Ground of recognition】 The fact that there has been no dispute, entries in Gap 2, 6, 7, and 8 (including virtual numbers), the purport of the whole pleadings
2. Determination
A. On the wind that the boundary wall installed between the plaintiff of this case and the defendant building of this case is not located in the boundary of the plaintiff of this case and the defendant building of this case (the boundary of drawings attached to the application for partition registration), but is installed by breaking the part of the plaintiff's building of this case, as stated in the purport of the claim, the defendant occupies the part of 3.9 square meters in the part of (A) and 3.9 square meters in order to connect each point of (2) (3) (4) (1) of the plaintiff's building of this case, and thus, the defendant
B. First of all, whether the Defendant occupied the part of the Plaintiff’s building in question over the boundary of the Plaintiff and the Defendant’s building, namely, whether the party wall actually installed was installed beyond the boundary of the Plaintiff and the Defendant’s building, or whether the party wall was installed on the part of the Plaintiff’s building.