beta
Text
1. The defendant is the plaintiff (appointed party) and the successor.
A. Of 94 square meters prior to Echeon-si, indication 1, 5, 6, 4.
Reasons
The facts of recognition are as follows: (a) the Plaintiff (Appointed Party) and the selector own each share of 1/2 of the 94 square meters and 57 square meters (hereinafter referred to as “land number”; and (b) the same shall apply individually to “land number”; (c) the Plaintiff and the selector own each share of 1/2.
The Defendant is the owner of each of the instant facilities (hereinafter collectively referred to as “each of the instant facilities”) in a ship which connects each point of (i) part of the attached drawings Nos. 1, 5, 6, 4, and 1 among the land attached to C, and connects each point of (ii) part of (i) the water tank of the general steel tank and the land No. 7-10, and 7 of the same drawings among the land D, in sequence.
[Ground of recognition] Fact that there is no dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 7, and the result of this court's request for measurement and appraisal to Leecheon branch office of the Korea Land Information Corporation, the purport of the entire pleadings, barring any special circumstance, the defendant is obligated to remove each of the facilities of this case owned by the defendant, located on each of the lands of this case, and the designated parties, and deliver part of the site.
In regard to this, the defendant alleged that he installed each of the facilities of this case with permission from the owner of each of the lands of this case at approximately twenty years prior to the 20-year period, but there is no evidence to acknowledge this (the defendant did not specifically claim the facts of the assertion or present any evidence to prove it despite the name of the full bench), and the fact that he obtained the consent of use from the owner of the previous land cannot oppose the plaintiff (appointed party) and the designated person, who is the new owner of the land. Thus, the defendant's above assertion is rejected.
In conclusion, the claims of the plaintiff (appointed party) and the designated party are with merit, and it is so decided as per Disposition.