beta
Text
1. The defendant shall make two indications (a), (b), (c), (d), (e), (f), (g), and (g) of the attached Form C on the ground of Yangcheon-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government.
Reasons
1. Facts of recognition;
A. The Plaintiff is the owner of the Yangcheon-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government Land C (hereinafter “instant land”) and the fourth floor building on the ground, and the Defendant is the owner of the D and E (hereinafter “instant land”) adjacent to the instant land and the third floor building on the ground.
B. The instant news report block (hereinafter “instant news report block”) was installed on the surface of 11 square meters in the column of attached drawings on the instant F land among the above passage roads, and the Defendant arbitrarily removed the said news report block on June 22, 2015, which revealed that the instant news report block was owned by the Plaintiff, on June 22, 2015.
C. Meanwhile, the Defendant uses as the parking lot the remainder of 5 square meters (hereinafter “the instant parking lot part”) excluding the portion of 11 square meters inboard portion of 11 square meters, which connects 11 square meters in sequence, on the part of 16 square meters in a ship that connects 16 square meters in the part of the attached drawing of Yangcheon-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government with the part of 10 square meters in the ship (hereinafter “instant vehicular road”) which connects 2 indications (a), (b), (d), (f), (g), (g) and (a) of the attached drawing of Yangcheon-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government.
The rent per square meter of the instant road from April 1, 2005 to March 31, 2014 is 1,807,563 won (i.e., 19,883,200 square meters ± 11 square meters). The monthly rent per square meter after April 1, 2015 is 16,200 won (=178,200 won ± 11 square meters).
[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap 1 through 6 evidence, each entry and video of Eul 1 evidence, the appraisal result of appraiser H, the purport of the whole pleadings
2. The Plaintiff asserted that the Defendant is using the entire portion of the instant road owned by the Plaintiff without permission, and sought the removal of the instant sidewalk block, the delivery of the said road portion, and the return of unjust enrichment.
As to this, the defendant is above the part of the passage road of this case.