beta
Text
1. Of the land size of B 3,574 square meters in Gwangju City, the Defendant indicated 59, 60, 61, 62, 63, 64, 65, 66, 67, 68, 69, among the land size of B 3,574 square meters in Gwangju-si.
Reasons
Basic Facts
- The Plaintiff is the owner of B forest land B in Gwangju-si (hereinafter “instant land”), and the Defendant is the owner of 1,785 square meters adjacent to the instant land prior to Gwangju-si, Gwangju-si (hereinafter “Adjoining land”).
- The Defendant installed the Defendant’s grandparent’s graves on the neighboring land, and planted trees, etc. in and around the surrounding areas, and during that process, the Defendant occupied and used the attached Form Nos. 59, 60, 61, 62, 63, 64, 65, 67, 68, 69, 70, 71, 72, 73, 74, 75, 76, 77, 78, 79, 80, 81, 82, 83, 84, and 59 in sequence among the land in the instant case (hereinafter “the land occupied in this case”).
[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 3 (including branch numbers; hereinafter the same shall apply) and images, the result of the on-site verification by this court, the result of the request for surveying and appraisal of the Korea Land Information Corporation in this court, based on the overall purport of the pleadings, the defendant occupies the land occupied in this case without title, barring special circumstances, and thus, the defendant is obligated to deliver the land occupied in this case to the plaintiff who is the owner of the land in this case.
In this regard, the Defendant asserted that he acquired the right to graveyard within the planted limit, since he planted part of the instant land with the consent of D, the former owner of the instant land, for the purpose of protecting and removing grandparents’ graves, but there is no evidence to acknowledge it. Moreover, according to the result of the on-site verification by the court and the result of the survey and appraisal on the Korea Land Information Corporation, it is difficult to view that the occupied part of the instant land, which the Defendant claimed the right to graveyard, is a land within the necessary scope for the protection and removal of graves.
The defendant's argument is without merit.
The plaintiff's claim for conclusion is justified.