beta
Text
1. The defendant shall be the plaintiff.
A. Of the land size of 113 m2 in the Chungcheongnam-gun B, Chungcheongnam-gun, Chungcheongbuk-gun, the attached appraisal map No. 1 through 9, 12 through 18, and 1.
Reasons
1. Judgment on the plaintiff's assertion
A. On July 6, 2005, the Plaintiff completed the registration of ownership transfer on the land B, which was based on the sale on July 5, 2005, with respect to the land D-do, Chungcheongnam-do, Chungcheongnam-do (hereinafter referred to as “Myeon”) on July 6, 2005. After that, the Plaintiff completed the registration of ownership transfer on the land B, which was based on the sale on July 5, 2005, and thereafter, through a merger and division of land, the land B large 13 square meters and C large 3
A) The instant land owned by the Plaintiff was adjacent to E-Road 2203 square meters, which is owned by the State, to Southwest-west, and the said road owned by the State was used as the farm road for the residents of Friri Village. The Defendant, at the residents’ request on 2008, carried out concrete packaging construction works on the said road, followed the part indicated in paragraph (1) of the instant land, and (b) (hereinafter collectively referred to as “the instant land portion”).
[Ground of recognition] Unsatisfy, Gap evidence 1 to 3, the result of the survey and appraisal by appraiser G, the purport of the whole pleadings
B. According to the above facts of recognition, the defendant has a duty to remove concrete packages on the ground of this case and deliver the land portion of this case to the plaintiff who exercises the right to claim the removal of interference based on ownership, barring special circumstances.
2. On the judgment of the defendant's assertion, the defendant, around 2008, obtained the Friri Village's oral consent from the plaintiff on the packaging of the instant land at the time of concrete packing construction, and the plaintiff renounced his right to the instant land by allowing the defendant without any objection, even after knowing the fact that the instant land was packed, so the defendant did not bear the obligation to remove and deliver the said land. However, since there is no evidence to acknowledge the defendant's assertion, the above argument cannot be accepted.
3. In conclusion, the plaintiff's claim of this case is justified and it is ordered to accept it.