beta
Text
1. The defendant shall be the plaintiff.
(a) remove the trees, plastic houses, containers, and provisional buildings listed in the attached Table 1 list;
Reasons
1. Determination as to whether the obligation to deliver real estate and remove ground objects exists
A. The cited part 1) Each real estate listed in paragraphs (1) through (4) of the attached list of the judgment on the cause of the claim (hereinafter “each real estate of this case”) was owned by Nonparty C, and was owned by the Plaintiff on March 25, 2003. The Defendant from around 1997 to the present time, as shown in the attached list No. 1 on each real estate of this case, as shown in the separate sheet No. 1 on each real estate of this case from around March 25, 2003.
(2) Since the fact that all of the above real estate is possessed as of the present time by installing or planting the above real estate does not conflict between the parties, according to the above facts of recognition, the defendant occupied all of the above real estate and thereby hindering the exercise of the plaintiff's right to each of the above real estate. As a result, the defendant obtains the profit from the use of each of the above real estate and thereby causes damages equivalent to the same amount to the plaintiff. Therefore, the defendant is obligated to remove the above ground of this case to the plaintiff, deliver the pertinent real estate, return the profits equivalent to the profits from the use of the land of this case from March 25, 2013, which the plaintiff acquired the ownership of the land of this case from March 25, 2013 to the unjust enrichment. (2) The defendant's assertion that the defendant has the right to possess the land of this case and the claim for the purchase of land
B. The Plaintiff asserts that the Plaintiff had the right to lease and use each of the instant real property from C, and that if the Plaintiff terminated the said lease agreement, the Plaintiff claimed for the purchase of tree trees 178 out of the instant ground property against the Plaintiff who succeeded to the status of the lessor C.
In this case, the plaintiff was the plaintiff's son's son, and the defendant was the real estate of this case around 1997.