2006da 3754 Land delivery, etc.

leap* (?)

**.**

Attorney Kim*

A*

**** Dong***

Attorney Han-han*

October 17, 2007

November 14, 2007

1. The defendant delivers to the plaintiff *** in the city*** in the Dong** in the Gu** in the Gu* in the Gu,* in the Gu, 2, 3, 11, 10, 9, and 8 in the annexed Form No. 8, 2, 3, 11, 10, 9, and 8 in the order of each point.

2. The costs of the lawsuit are assessed against the defendant.

3. Paragraph 1 can be provisionally executed.

The same shall apply to the order.

1. Facts of recognition;

A.*** time* Dong***** Large 274m (hereinafter referred to as the "instant land") the plaintiff made on December 22, 1981.

It is the land owned by the plaintiff who completed the registration of ownership transfer.

B. Line connecting each point of the instant land indicated in the Appendix No. 8, 2, 3, 11, 10, 9, 8.

On the ground of 39m2 (hereinafter referred to as "land in dispute") part of 'in or 'in part', 'in the part of 39m3m2 (hereinafter referred to as "land in dispute").

Since the defendant has been placed, he occupies the land in dispute as the site of the said stable.

[Ground of Recognition: Facts without dispute, entry of Gap evidence 1, result of field inspection by this court, result of appraiser Kim *]

2. Determination

A. Determination on the cause of the claim

According to the above facts, the defendant has a duty to deliver the land to the plaintiff unless he has a right to possess the land in dispute.

As to this, the defendant alleged that the land in this case is located**** the Si* the present boundary in the cadastral map because the boundary in the cadastral map does not coincide with the present boundary, and thus, it cannot be concluded that the land in this case owned by the plaintiff was built by the defendant (including the land in this case), but it is not sufficient to recognize that the land in this case is located within the cadastral inconsistency, and there is no other evidence to recognize it, and rather, according to the description in Eul evidence No. 11 and the fact-finding decision on the late market, the land in this case was designated as the object of correction of registered matters ** on April 194 * on August 8, 1995, and thus, the defendant's argument cannot be accepted.

The defendants alleged that the land in dispute is above**** in the vicinity of the land in this case** in the above time** in the above time**** in the above time* because the land still remains as the land subject to correction of registered matters and the boundary of the land in this case has not been clearly specified. Thus, there is no reason to recognize that the land in dispute belongs to the above*****-* in the above time***-* in the above time.

B. Determination on the defense of the acquisition by prescription of possession

On December 30, 1962, the Defendant acquired ownership by completing the distribution and reimbursement of the square meters of the land of this case under the Farmland Reform Act*** in that time**** in that time** in that time* in that time* in the past 982 meters, from that time, he had cultivated the land of this case as dry field, and used dry field as dry field ** in that time *** in that time ***** in that time after the purchase of the land ** in that land * in that time * in that area * in the boundary of the land of this case * in that year 1984 through 1985 (or in that year * in that year *-- in that country * in that year 1976 acquired the land * in that time * in that time * in that time * in that time * in that time * in that time 1985 has occupied the land as the land of this case ever owned.

Therefore, with respect to whether the defendant occupied the land in question for not less than 20 years by constructing stone festivals, that is, whether not less than 20 years have elapsed since 20 years have passed since the construction of the existing stone shed on the land in question at high level, the statement of No. 15, No. 15, No. 20-3, No. 14, No. 16, No. 17, No. 19 (including each number), No. 20-1, No. 20, and No. 1, No. 20-2, No. 3-2, No. 5, No. 9 (including each number), and No. 1, No. 1, and No. 1, No. 3-2, and No. 9 (including each number), and No. 1, No. 1989-2, No. 5, No. 1989-2, Dec. 1, 198.

3. Conclusion

Thus, since the defendant is obligated to deliver the land in dispute to the plaintiff, the plaintiff's claim in this case is justified.

Hephoho Lake