beta
Text
1. Defendant B’s KRW 2,00,000 and, with respect thereto, KRW 5% per annum from December 26, 2013 to July 20, 2016, and the following:
Reasons
Facts of recognition
Defendant B is the legal spouse of H who died around January 25, 2012 (hereinafter “the deceased”), and Defendant C, D, and E are the children of the deceased.
The Deceased and the Defendant B resided in the container installed on the ground of the F Land in Silung City owned by the Plaintiff from April 2007 to April 2008 (hereinafter “instant F Land”).
Around June 2007, the Deceased leased and operated a earth and sand store located on the G roadside in Silung-si, G from the Plaintiff, and around January 29, 2008, the Deceased was destroyed by a fire, and thereafter, continued to operate his business at the same place using an I business remodeling vehicle in his name.
On the other hand, on March 1, 2008, the Plaintiff was found guilty of violating the Act on Special Measures for Designation and Management of Development Restriction Zones, on the grounds that, on the grounds that, on the grounds that the Plaintiff leased and used the land in Ansan-si, Sin-si, which belongs to the development restriction zone (hereinafter “instant K land”), the Plaintiff installed one Dong of 11 square meters of container and one Dong of 7 square meters of container without permission. The Plaintiff was found guilty of violating the Act on Special Measures for Designation and Management of Development Restriction Zones.
[Ground of recognition] In the absence of dispute, the plaintiff asserts that Gap 3, 4, 6, 7, 11 through 21, Eul 1, 12, 17-20, 17-32, 22, and 23 had leased part of the land of this case to 100,000 won per month for the deceased to install a container and live there, and that around March 2007, the plaintiff filed a claim against the defendants as to the F container as to Gap 3, 4, 6, 7, 11 through 21, Eul 11, 12, 17-20, 17-32, 22, 23, and 300,000 won per month for six years from April 1, 2007, from December 26, 2013 to the date of delivery of the above land, and the fine imposed due to unauthorized imposition of a container, and damages incurred prior to the issuance of a container.
However, the following circumstances revealed in the record, namely, the Defendants were temporarily placed in the container owned by the Plaintiff.