beta
Text
1. The defendant shall be the plaintiff.
A. Of the 1,245 square meters prior to Seosan-si, the attached appraisal marks 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, and 5 shall be as follows.
Reasons
1. Facts of recognition;
A. From June 8, 1995, the Plaintiff owned 1,245 square meters (hereinafter “instant land”) prior to Seosan-si, Seosan-si.
B. The Defendant purchased three buildings indicated in Paragraph (a) of Section 1, which are unregistered buildings on the instant land (hereinafter “each of the instant buildings”) from Nonparty D and owned them from November 30, 2017.
[Ground of recognition] The absence of dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 5, Eul evidence Nos. 1, 3, and 4 (including each number, if any), and the result of the appraisal commission and inquiry about the chief of the Korean Land Information Corporation, the main purpose of the whole pleadings
2. Determination
A. According to the above facts of recognition as to the cause of the claim, the defendant is obligated to remove each of the buildings of this case to the plaintiff unless there are special circumstances, and deliver the site of each of the buildings of this case possessed by the defendant among the land of this case to the plaintiff.
B. The defendant's defense, etc. 1) was aware of the owner of each building of this case at the time of the purchase of each building of this case, and obtained the consent for land use from E, and thus, there is a legitimate right to possess the site of each building of this case. However, just because the plaintiff, not the plaintiff, obtained the consent for land use from E, it is difficult to view that the defendant has the right to occupy the land of this case, and the evidence submitted by the defendant alone is insufficient to recognize that the defendant has the right to consent to use the land of this case. The defendant is without merit. 2) Since D, the former owner of each building of this case, obtained the consent from the plaintiff, and therefore, the defendant also purchased each building of this case from D, was also entitled to occupy the land of this case. However, there is no assertion or proof of special circumstances that the plaintiff's consent to use the land of this case extends to the defendant.