beta
Text
1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.
2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Plaintiff.
Purport of claim and appeal
The first instance court.
Reasons
1. The following facts are either in dispute between the parties or in full view of Gap evidence 1-1-3, evidence 2-1-2, evidence 3-1-3, evidence 5, 6, 14, 22, and 27, and evidence 3-1 through 3, evidence 5, 6, 14, 27, and evidence 3.
On February 18, 2010, the Plaintiff acquired the ownership of a large-scale C 460 square meters (hereinafter “instant land”) and a large-scale D 463 square meters (hereinafter “D land”) and installed a block-type reinforcement axis (hereinafter “instant reinforcement axis”) on each of the above lands around that time.
The plaintiff asserts that it was established around 2009, but it is recognized as above in light of the time of acquisition of the plaintiff's ownership.
B. On July 2010, the Plaintiff sold D land and its neighboring E, to the Defendant (hereinafter “E land”), and completed the registration of ownership transfer under each Defendant’s name around September 29, 2010 for D land, and around November 5, 2010 for E land.
C. F is a drawing attached to the decision of the Seoul Northern District Court case No. 2013Ma168 (Evidence No. 22, 25, and 3) among the Reinforcements of the instant case at the Defendant’s request of construction around March 2011, F is a drawing attached to the decision of the Seoul Northern District Court (Evidence No. 22, 25, 3).
At the marked “A” point, parts which were installed as a valleys from the surface of land D and E to the surface of land, were removed, and a axis was installed as hot stone in the same location (hereinafter “instant stone axis”). D.
Since November 8, 2012, G large-28 square meters and H large-42 square meters were divided in D land, and I large-106 square meters were divided in the instant C land.
2. The parties' assertion
A. The gist of the Plaintiff’s assertion is that the Defendant established, but at the time, the Plaintiff and the Defendant agreed that the Plaintiff owned it, and the instant stone shed was installed on the ground of the instant land owned by the Plaintiff, and thus, it was consistent with the instant land C and owned by the Plaintiff.
However, the defendant's construction work around May 2013 to JJ.