beta
Text
1. The Defendant has each point of the Plaintiff with the indication of the attached Form 16, 17, 18, 19, 16 on the land of Gyeonggi-gu, Gyeonggi-do, 745 square meters of land.
Reasons
1. Basic facts
A. The Plaintiff is the owner of 745 square meters of forests and fields C in Gyeonggi-gu (hereinafter “instant land”).
B. The Defendant is the owner of each land adjacent to the instant land, D and E.
C. However, the Defendant, among the land in this case, has each possessed 29 square meters of "bbb" part of "b" inside the instant land (hereinafter "b" in this case), 8, 10, 19, 16, 15, 14, 13, 13, and 8 successively connected with the parts of the attached drawing Nos. 2, 3, 4, 12, and 10 in sequence connected with the steel fence Nos. 8, 9, 9, 10, 19, 16, 15, 14, 13, and 29 square meters of "c" part of the attached drawing No. 16, 17, 18, 19, and 16 among the above land (hereinafter "c" in this case). The Defendant, in sequence, installs a wooden fence with each point of "b" in the attached drawing No. 2, 3, 4, 12, and 16.
[Ground of recognition] Unsatisfy, Gap's statements or images of Gap's 1, 2, 4, and 6 (including paper numbers), the result of a request for surveying and appraisal to the chief of the Korea Cadastral Corporation, the purport of the entire pleadings
2. The assertion and judgment
A. According to the above facts of recognition as to the cause of the claim, the Defendant, as the owner of the land of this case, is obligated to remove 4m2 above ground toilets on the ground of “4m2” in the instant case, and deliver each of the instant “bb” and “cream” possessed by the Defendant, barring special circumstances.
B. The defendant's defense asserted that the defendant could not respond to the plaintiff's claim since he acquired by prescription the part of the defendant's possession. However, there is no evidence to acknowledge this. The above argument is without merit
3. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices, on the ground that the plaintiff's claim of this case is reasonable.