beta
Text
1. The plaintiff's lawsuit on the claim for ownership confirmation shall be dismissed.
2. The defendant shall pay 21,565,700 won to the plaintiff.
Reasons
1. In order to determine the legitimacy of the lawsuit on the part of the claim for ownership verification, there is no dispute between the parties as to whether the part of the claim for ownership verification (hereinafter “Plaintiff’s land”) is owned by the Plaintiff, among the items indicated in the attached Form 3, 6, 4, 10, 7, 8, 9, and 3 among the items of the attached Form 3, 6, 4, 10, 7, 8, 9, and 3.
The plaintiff seeks confirmation that the part of the dispute is owned by the plaintiff.
However, the defendant does not dispute this, and rather, the following circumstances can be acknowledged in full view of the statement 1, 2, and 2-1, 7-3 of the evidence Nos. 4-1, 2, and 2-2, and 7-3 of the evidence, the result of the examination by this court, and the purport of the whole pleadings.
The Plaintiff filed a lawsuit against the former owner of the Gangnam-gu Seoul E. E. E., 595 square meter (hereinafter “Defendant’s land”) located adjacent to the Plaintiff’s land against F, seeking removal of the fence owned by F, by 2003Kadan2980, Seoul District Court, to remove the fence and deliver the part of the land in question. However, in the lawsuit, the lower court confirmed that the part in dispute was the Plaintiff’s ownership, and F, in turn, did not comply with the decision of recommending settlement, which included “F, on June 2003, the part of the wall (which was constructed on the line connected to the point of 7,8, and 9, indicated in the drawings, among the Plaintiff’s land; hereinafter “the wall”).
At the time of February 24, 2006, the defendant acquired the ownership by winning the land owned by F in a voluntary auction procedure, and occupied and used the dispute portion from that time.
Upon the Plaintiff’s request, the Defendant paid the rent from October 10, 2006 to December 31, 2013 by leasing the dispute portion from the Plaintiff. Even thereafter, the circumstance that the Defendant claimed the Plaintiff’s ownership regarding the dispute portion is not revealed.
The defendant filed the lawsuit of this case in April 2016 with the plaintiff's land and the defendant's land.