beta
Text
1. The Plaintiff:
A. Defendant B indicated on the attached sheet No. 1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9, among the 523.6m2 in Suwon-si D, Suwon-si, as well as the attached sheet No. 1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9.
Reasons
1. Facts of recognition;
A. The Plaintiff is the co-owner and the owner of the building indicated in the attached sheet in Suwon-si, Suwon-si D 523.6m2 (hereinafter “instant land”).
B. The Defendants occupied and used the buildings listed in the separate sheet from around 1994, and as the above buildings were destroyed on the ground of the instant land, they constructed each of the following buildings on the ground of the instant land and owned, possessed, and used each of them until the closure of the pleadings of the instant case.
A building (A) that connects each point of No. 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 10, and 1 of the attached Table No. 2 of the building owned by the Defendant each in turn with the indication of No. 8, 9, 10, 16, 15, 14, 13, 12, 11, and 8 of the attached Table No. 1,2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 7, 9, 10, 100, 77.2m2, 77.2m2, 77, 77.2m2, 77, 100,000 per each of the items of No. 8,9, 16, 15, 14, 13, 12, 11, and 8,000.
2. According to the above facts of recognition as to the cause of the claim, barring special circumstances, Defendant B is obligated to remove the building (A), deliver the above part of the land of this case, remove the building (B), and deliver the above part of the land of this case. Defendant C is obligated to deliver the above part of the land of this case.
3. As to the defendants' assertion, the defendants asserted that the buildings listed in the attached list and F, which were co-owners of the land of this case, have been used with the consent of use of the buildings and the land of this case, but there is no evidence to acknowledge this. Rather, according to the Gap evidence No. 4, the defendants prepared and executed a letter to the effect that the buildings listed in the attached list and F, which were co-owners of the land of this case, will deliver the buildings and the land of this case at any time on or around May 200 when the name of the building is requested. Thus, the defendants' above assertion is without merit.
4. Thus, the plaintiff's claim against the defendants is justified.