beta
Text
1. All appeals filed by the Defendant (Counterclaim Plaintiff) and the counterclaim claim filed by this court are dismissed.
2. The plaintiffs raised objection.
Reasons
A principal lawsuit and counterclaim shall also be deemed a principal lawsuit and counterclaim.
1. The reasons why the court should explain this part of the facts of recognition are the same as the corresponding part of the reasoning of the judgment of the first instance, except that the last place of the judgment of the first instance, where “a restaurant is operated in a building” is deemed “L” in the name of “L” (hereinafter “instant restaurant”). Thus, this part of the reasoning of the judgment of the first instance is cited in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.
2. Summary of the parties' arguments
A. The plaintiffs' land No. 1 is owned by the plaintiff A and the land No. 2 of this case. The defendant operates the restaurant of this case and occupies the parts of the (b), (5), and (6) of this case without a justifiable title. Thus, the defendant is obligated to remove the buildings and the world existing on the ground of the above land, deliver the above land, and return unjust enrichment from the illegal occupation of each of the above land.
B. Defendant 1) The land of this case was used from the time K of the Defendant’s conciliation division, and was actually owned by the Defendant. If Plaintiff B introduced that the land of this case was purchased from G to the Defendant, the part used as the site of the restaurant of this case was donated free of charge to the Defendant. However, as Plaintiff B purchased the land of this case in the name of Plaintiff A, the Defendant would have received the donations from the Plaintiffs of this case (b), (e), (vi), and (vi). Accordingly, the Plaintiffs’ claim is without merit. In addition, from around 1948, the land of this case was purchased and used by the Defendant’s conciliation division from around 1948, and thereafter, the Defendant’s wife (Death around 1996) succeeded to the possession of this case and used it as a dry field.
From around 1984, the defendant succeeded to the possession of the land Nos. 1 and 2 in this case and operated the street point with the trade name “N” on the ground, and it is the typhoon around 200.