beta
Text
1. The Defendant: (a) from January 11, 2017, to the Plaintiffs, the attached reference to the attached Form No. 16, 17, 18, 28, 27, 27, among the 2,435 square meters of the 2,435 square meters of Kuju-si.
Reasons
Basic Facts
A. On January 11, 2017, the Plaintiffs completed the registration of ownership transfer on each of the shares of 1/2 out of each of the instant land.
B. The Defendant is the owner of the F farm site 5,540 square meters (hereinafter “Defendant’s land”) adjacent to each of the instant land, in the city of Won-si.
[Reasons for Recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1 and 2 (including virtual numbers; hereinafter the same shall apply), the purport of the whole pleadings, and the gist of the plaintiffs' argument in the whole arguments, the defendant occupies and uses each part of the ship of this case without any title.
Therefore, the defendant is obligated to deliver each part of the ship of this case to the plaintiffs, and to pay unjust enrichment equivalent to the rent due to the difference in the ship of this case and the possession and use of the part.
Judgment
1) As seen earlier, the Plaintiffs are the owners of 1/2 shares out of each of the instant lands. The facts that the Defendant occupied and used the instant part D and the instant part as a passage from the Defendant’s land to the contribution to the Defendant’s land do not conflict among the parties. Therefore, barring any special circumstance, the Defendant is obligated to deliver the Plaintiff the instant part, and to pay unjust enrichment to the Plaintiff. 2) Although the Plaintiffs asserted that the Defendant occupied, occupied, and used the instant part b, D, and E, the instant land, the Plaintiffs did not have any evidence to acknowledge this. Therefore, this part of the Plaintiffs’ assertion is without merit.
A) As to the Defendant’s assertion regarding the Defendant’s assertion, the Defendant and the former owners of the Defendant’s land paid expenses to the former owners of each of the instant lands and consented to the use of each of the instant lands. Therefore, the Defendant asserts that the possession and use of each of the instant lands is based on a legitimate title, according to the written evidence Nos. 2 and 3, the Defendant and the former owners of the instant land from 1965 to 2005.