beta
Text
1. Of the amount of 1,267.4 square meters for the plaintiffs in Yangyang-gu, Yangyang-gu;
A. Defendant J shall do each of the marks 4, 6, 7, 10, and 4 of the annexed drawings.
Reasons
1. Facts of recognition;
A. The Plaintiffs are co-owners of Maul-ro (hereinafter “instant building”) constructed on the ground of 1,267m2 (hereinafter “instant land”).
B. Defendant J shall install and own each of the above parts of the land (hereinafter collectively referred to as “each of the instant parcels of land”) on the ground of 3.8 square meters connected in order to each point of 4, 6, 7, 10, and 4 of the annexed drawings among the instant land, and Defendant K shall possess each of the above parts of the instant parcels of land (hereinafter referred to as “each of the instant parcels of land”) on the ground of 3.8 square meters connected in order to each point of 7, 8, 9, 10, and 7 of the annexed drawings.
[Reasons for Recognition] Facts without a partial dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1 and 2, the records and videos of this Court, the results of the commission of surveying and appraisal to N Co., Ltd. (AppraiserO) and the purport of the whole pleadings
2. Determination
A. According to the above facts of recognition as to the cause of the claim, the Defendants are obligated to remove each of the instant coordinates and deliver each of the instant dispute land to the Plaintiffs seeking the exclusion of disturbance as a sectional owner of the instant land, barring any special circumstance.
B. The Defendants’ assertion concerning the Defendants is arguing to the effect that the Defendants were unable to comply with the Plaintiffs’ claim in light of the fact-finding and the overall purport of the evidence and pleadings, and the part of the images attached to the result of the court’s fact-finding on the appraiser O alone is insufficient to recognize the Defendants’ claim, and it is difficult to accept the Defendants’ assertion on the grounds that there is no other evidence to acknowledge it, and thus, the Defendants’ assertion is difficult to accept.
3. In conclusion, the plaintiffs' claims are justified.