beta
Text
1. The Central Land Tribunal among the lawsuits in this case is the recipient of compensation due to the adjudication of expropriation No. 16,0207.
Reasons
1. Basic facts
A. Attached 1 List 1 through 4 (hereinafter “instant land”) is owned by the Plaintiff. On the ground of the instant land, 120 square meters of a single-story building, 72 square meters of a single-story building, 72 square meters of a single-story building, and 6 square meters of a single-story building, which is the Plaintiff’s unauthorized Building, and 30 square meters of a single-story building, which is the same as indicated in paragraph (c) of Section 2 of the Disposition No. 2, which is an unauthorized Building owned by the Plaintiff (hereinafter “instant building”). On the ground of the instant land, the instant land is planted by 150 square meters of pine trees owned by the Plaintiff and 41 square meters of sublim trees (hereinafter collectively referred to as “the instant tree”).
B. Attached 3 List 1, 2, and 3 (hereinafter “instant 5, 6, and 7”) were originally owned by the Plaintiff, but were expropriated on September 13, 2016.
C. On April 10, 2009, the Plaintiff concluded a lease contract (hereinafter “instant lease contract”) by setting the period from April 10, 2009 to April 10, 201 with respect to the Defendant and the instant land and the instant building as planting 30 peach tree (However, the Defendant, instead of the peach tree, planted sublim trees and consented thereto). The Defendant occupied the instant 1 to 4 land and the instant building from the time of the conclusion of the instant lease contract to the date of the conclusion of the instant lease contract.
[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1-1-4, Gap evidence 2-2, the purport of the whole pleadings
2. On July 21, 2016, the Central Land Expropriation Committee accepted the instant 5,6,7 land for the C Corporation project as a case number of 16,0207, and made an adjudication to transfer the claims stated in the 5,6, and 6’s claims stated in the 5, and 2, claims stated in the 5, and 6’s claims.
However, although the claim 2 is owned by the plaintiff, the defendant argued that he is his own ownership.