beta
Text
1. The Plaintiff:
A. The Defendants each indicated on the attached Table 16, 17, 18, 6, and 16, among the land size of 1,256 square meters in Gyeongnam-gun F.
Reasons
1. Facts of recognition;
A. The Plaintiff is the owner of KRW 1,256 square meters in the Republic of Korea (hereinafter “instant land”) and G forest land of KRW 11,504 square meters in the Republic of Korea (hereinafter “instant land”).
B. The Defendants, who are co-owners of H. 186 square meters in South-west-gun H. In order to establish a passage road on the said land, installed a concrete retaining wall and a fence to build a passage road on the said land. The Defendants, among the instant land owned by the Plaintiff, violated the attached Table 1 appraisal of the attached Table 16, 17, 18, 6, and 16 square meters (hereinafter “the instant part”) on the part of the ship (hereinafter “instant (b)”).
C. Defendant B and C established a solar panel on the land, etc. of the Gyeongnam-gun, Nam-gun, which is jointly owned by their owners, and committed an offense of violation of the attached Table Nos. 59, 60, 61, and 59 (hereinafter “the part of the instant case”) with respect to the portion (a) on board that connects each point of 59, 60, 61, and 59 among the instant land owned by the Plaintiff.
[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 3 (including branch numbers for those with a branch number; hereinafter the same shall apply), Gap evidence Nos. 4, each of the images of this court, the result of the commission of surveying and appraisal to the termination of the Korea Land Information Corporation, the purport of the whole pleadings
2. According to the above facts of recognition as to the cause of the claim, the Defendants are obligated to remove concrete retaining walls and fences installed in the part of the instant claim (b) and deliver the said part to the Plaintiff, Defendant B and C are obligated to remove solar energy panels established in the part (a) of the instant case and deliver the said part (a).
3. Thus, the plaintiff's claim of this case against the defendants is justified.