Damages in the case of illegally occupying the site without title;

If a site is illegally occupied without title, the amount of damages shall be equivalent to the amount of the rent, unless there is a reason to the group.

Article 709 of the former Civil Code

Plaintiff

Defendant

The original judgment shall be revoked.

The defendant removes the building in the attached list to the plaintiff and pays a refund in proportion to gold 108 e.g. from August 1, 4287 to December 31 of the same year 4288 short-term 15 e.g. from January 1, 4288 to December 31 of the same year from January 1, 4288 to December 31 of the same year.

The claim for the plaintiff's interest is dismissed.

Litigation costs shall be borne by the defendant in the first and second trials.

The original judgment is revoked. The defendant removed the building recorded in the attached list from August 1, 4287 to the date of completion of its removal, and paid a gold refund in proportion to 225 exchange per annum with respect to the total sum of 60 copies of the same site from August 1, 4287 to the date of its removal. Litigation costs shall be borne by the defendant in the first and second instances. In the first and second instances, the plaintiff's attorney withdraws the portion of the claim for the land listed in attached Form 2 of the judgment of the court below among the claims for the principal lawsuit, and the defendant's attorney consented to the withdrawal of part of the lawsuit and sought a judgment of rejection of prosecution.

The substance of both parties' actual use of the land as the cause of the plaintiff's claim is that the non-party 1 (the non-party 2's father) and the non-party 2 (the plaintiff's father) are actually managing the property of each source and the defendant 10 years before the ten-year grace period, which is the land purchased as the building site for the 8/15 year immediately before the 10th anniversary of the fact that the plaintiff's claim was made, and that the non-party 3 et al. purchased the building site for the 10-year grace period from August 15, 4276 to August 14, 279 (the fire 18.8.14.), the non-party 2 purchased the building site for the 10-year grace period from the 0-year grace period to the 10-year grace period, and thus, the non-party 4 et al.'s new use of the building site for the 10-year grace period, which is the right of the plaintiff 27 years.

As evidence, the plaintiff's attorney submitted Gap evidence Nos. 1, 2, and 3 and claimed the testimony of the non-party 2 and 1 of the court below, and sought the summons of the non-party 3 of the witness at the court of original instance, and used the results of on-site verification conducted by the court of original instance as the benefit of the fact-finding conducted by the non-party 2 of the court of original instance, and the defendant's attorney submitted the evidence Nos. 1, 2, 3, and the testimony of the non-party 4, 5, 6, 7, and 8 of the court of original instance, and the defendant's attorney submitted the evidence Nos. 1, 5, 6, 7, and

The court below's decision that the land stated in the attached list is owned by the plaintiff, the fact that the defendant owned the building on the ground as of the present date, and the rent for the building on behalf of the plaintiff and the defendant five percent per five percent per year from August 15, 4276 to August 14, 279 (from August 15, 18, to August 14, 21, 200), and that the lease contract was concluded for three years from August 14, 279 on behalf of the plaintiff and the defendant, there is no theory between the parties, and that the plaintiff occupies the building on the ground without the title of 40 days from 0 days before the short-term 4284, and the defendant still has a duty to compensate the plaintiff for damages due to the expiration of the lease contract. Accordingly, the court below's decision that the plaintiff's new lease contract for the building on the ground of 40 days from 0 days after the expiration of the lease contract without the title of 40 days after the expiration of the lease contract.

In excess, the amount of damages shall be equal to the amount of the compensation, unless there is a separate reason, and the amount of damages shall be equal to the amount of the compensation, and upon Non-Party 3’s testimony, the amount of the compensation for the site shall be equal to the amount of the compensation, so long as the amount of the compensation is converted into gold exchange, the amount of the compensation for the site shall be equal to the amount of the compensation for the 60th of the site in wartime from August 1, 4287 to the completion date of the removal of the building, the amount of the compensation for the damages for the 4288th of that year shall be equal to the amount of the 45th of that year for the 4288th of that year, the amount of the compensation for the damages for the 60th of that site from August 1, 4287 to the completion date of removal of the building.

Since the plaintiff's main claim is justified within the limit of good recognition, it is dismissed. The judgment of the court below which has different result is unfair as it is unfair, and it is so decided as per Disposition by applying Articles 96 and 89 of the Civil Procedure Act with respect to the burden of litigation costs, since it is revoked by Article 386 of the Civil Procedure Act.

Judges Song Jae-gu (Presiding Judge)