beta
Text
1. The defendant shall be the plaintiff.
A. Of the 998 square meters in Chungcheongnam-gun, Hongsung-gun, Chungcheongnam-gun, each point of which is indicated in the annexed drawings No. 1, 2, 3, 4, and 1 in sequence.
Reasons
1. Basic facts
A. On March 11, 2005, the Defendant: (a) leased the lease term of KRW 1,332 square meters from the Plaintiff, Hongsung-gun, Hongsung-gun (hereinafter “former land prior to the alteration”) from January 1, 2005 to December 31, 2009; (b) concluded an agreement with the Defendant to build a prefabricated-type building with the size of 77.25 square meters on that ground to be used by the Defendant and D (hereinafter “instant lease agreement”).
B. Meanwhile, on March 8, 2006, the land category of 500 square meters in the previous land was changed to a site on March 8, 2006, and thereafter the remainder was also a site due to the Plaintiff’s change of the form and quality, and the previous land was 98 square meters in Hong-gun, Hongsung-gun (hereinafter “instant land”).
C. According to the instant lease agreement, the Defendant newly constructed a building on the ground of 80 square meters on the part of “C” connected with each point of 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, and 9 among the instant land in sequence, and obtained approval for use on November 9, 2005. Thereafter, the Defendant installed an advertising tower on the part of “A” connected each point of 11 square meters and 5,6, 7, 8, and 5 square meters in sequence with each point of 1,2, 3, 4, and 15 square meters in the same map, and installed an advertising tower on the part of “A” (hereinafter “the instant warehouse”) on the ground of 67 square meters in sequence connected each point of 15, 16, 17, 18, and 15.
[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1, 4 through 6, Eul evidence Nos. 2, the fact inquiry result of this court's Hong-gun, the result of this court's entrustment of surveying appraisal of the Korea Cadastral Corporation, the purport of the whole pleadings
2. The assertion and judgment
A. According to the above facts, according to the judgment as to the cause of the claim, the Defendant’s construction on the ground of the instant land owned by the Plaintiff, including the instant building, and occupied the instant land, and the lease term under the instant lease contract has expired.