beta
Text
1. The defendant shall be the plaintiff.
A. Removal of the packaging roads installed on the ground of 12 square meters in Gyeongbuk-gun, Gyeongbuk-gun, and the above land.
Reasons
1. Basic facts
A. The Defendant, while carrying out the “C business” (Public Notice D, July 10, 2013, 201) and designating the Plaintiff’s 92 square meters of land as its business site, did not take lawful compensation procedures, such as the procedure for accommodation, and completed the road packaging construction including 12 square meters of land owned by the Plaintiff, among the above land, on November 1, 2017.
B. As above, on January 10, 2019, the registration was completed with regard to the portion of 12 square meters, which was 12 square meters of the road package construction among the above land owned by the Plaintiff, as a field of 12 square meters (hereinafter “instant land”).
[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1, 6, 8, Eul evidence Nos. 6 through 9 (including provisional number), the purport of the whole pleadings
2. Determination as to the cause of action
A. 1) According to the above facts, the Defendant did not take lawful procedures for compensation, such as the procedure for accommodation, and did not occupy until November 201, 2017 after packaging the instant land owned by the Plaintiff. Thus, barring any special circumstance, the Plaintiff, the owner of the instant land, is obligated to remove the packaging roads of the instant land and deliver the instant land to the Plaintiff. 2) The Defendant asserts that the Plaintiff’s request for removal constitutes an abuse of rights.
In full view of the purport of the entire arguments as seen earlier, the Defendant did not proceed with the procedure of expropriation regarding the Plaintiff’s land, except for the Plaintiff’s land, against the instant project. The Defendant need to implement a project to prevent the Plaintiff’s land adjacent to the site from being included in the site of road expansion through accurate boundary surveys. Nevertheless, the Defendant also included the instant land owned by the Plaintiff, which is part of the Plaintiff.