beta
Text
1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.
2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.
Reasons
1. Basic facts
A. The Plaintiff is the owner of the land listed in the attached list No. 1 (hereinafter “instant land”) and the building listed in Paragraph 2 of the same Table on the ground. The Defendants are co-owners of the land indicated in Paragraph 3 of the same Table adjacent to the instant land (hereinafter “instant adjacent land”) and the buildings listed in Paragraph 4 of the same Table on the ground.
B. Defendant B filed a lawsuit for the removal of a building and delivery of a site by asserting that part of the adjoining land of this case is occupied and used by the Plaintiff, and sentenced Defendant B to the judgment that “the Plaintiff shall deliver the land indicated in the three-dimensional map, such as the 0.5 square meters of the attached reference drawing among the adjoining land of this case and the 0.5 square meters of the land connected each point in order of 0.5 square meters of the attached reference drawing among the adjacent land of this case, and to the effect that “the land indicated in the 0.3 square meters of the adjacent land and the 0.3 square meters of the adjacent land, and to remove the above ground and underground building and facilities” (Seoul Central District Court Decision 2011Da40195, Nov. 22, 2012). The Plaintiff appealed the appeal but was pronounced a final and conclusive judgment (Seoul Central District Court Decision 2012Na59847, Oct. 16, 2013).
[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Eul evidence 1, Eul evidence 2, Eul evidence 3, the purport of the whole pleadings
2. The Plaintiff asserted that the portion (B) part (3.3 square meters was occupied and used as a parking lot and claimed for the return of unjust enrichment equivalent to the delivery of each of the above parts and the rent, in sequence, that the Defendants connected each point of 10, 9, 11, 6, and 10, such as the map No. 0.6 square meters on the ship (A) part of the attached Table No. 7, 8, 9, 10, and 7, among the land of this case, were connected in order to each point of 0.6 square meters.
First of all, it is consistent with the fact that the Defendants currently occupy and use the above (A) part and (b) part, and this Court E.