beta
Text
1. The Plaintiff:
A. Defendant B is in order of each point indicated in the attached Form 1, 2, 3, 4, and 1 among the area of 268 square meters in Jung-gu, Jung-gu.
Reasons
1. Facts of recognition;
A. The Plaintiff completed the registration of ownership transfer under the Plaintiff’s name on October 30, 2015, on October 22, 2015, with respect to D large scale 268 square meters (hereinafter “instant land”).
B. Defendant B is the owner of the warehouse indicated in the annexed Form No. 1 of the E-Ground (hereinafter “instant warehouse”) at the time of Jung-Eup adjacent to the instant land, and Defendant C occupied and used the instant warehouse at the time of the closing of the argument in the instant case.
[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1-1 and 2, the purport of the whole pleadings
2. According to the above facts of determination as to the cause of the claim, since the defendants interfere with the exercise of the plaintiff's right to the land of this case by owning, occupying, and using the warehouse of this case, the defendant Eul removed the warehouse of this case and delivered the land of this case to the plaintiff, and the defendant C has the duty to leave the warehouse of this case.
In addition, the Plaintiff sought payment of money calculated by the ratio of KRW 125,00 per month from October 22, 2015 to the completion date of the delivery of the instant land from the time when the Plaintiff acquired the ownership of the instant land due to unjust enrichment by illegal occupancy against Defendant B, but there is no evidence to acknowledge that the rent due to the possession of the instant warehouse is KRW 125,00 per month (or KRW 75,00 per month) (the amount equivalent to the rent due to the possession and use of the Defendant B cannot be ruled out to be less than the above amount). The Plaintiff’s claim for this part is rejected.
3. The Defendants asserted that the judgment on the Defendants’ assertion was the same person as the owner of the instant land and warehouse at the time of the construction of the instant warehouse, and thereafter, the owner of the instant land and warehouse changed to the sale and public sale. Accordingly, the Defendants asserted that statutory superficies under customary law exists on the instant warehouse.
However, the evidence presented by the Defendants alone is the time when the warehouse of this case was newly constructed.