beta
Text
1. The defendant, among the land size of 264 square meters in the city of Innju, each point of the attached Form 12, 11, 2, 3, 4, 13, and 12, among the land size of 264 square meters in the city of Inn
Reasons
1. Facts of recognition;
A. On April 24, 2013, the Plaintiff completed the registration of ownership transfer with respect to C & 264 square meters (hereinafter “instant land”).
B. Of the instant land, part of the building on the (B) section 27 square meters inside the ship (hereinafter “part of the instant land”) connected with each point of the attached Form 12, 11, 2, 3, 4, 13, and 12, among the instant land, is constructed.
【Evidence: Evidence Nos. 1, 2, and 3; Evidence Nos. 1, 2, and 3; Results of a request for surveying and appraisal to the branch offices of the Korea Land Information Corporation; and the purport of the whole pleadings】
2. Judgment on the parties' arguments
A. According to the above facts of recognition as to the cause of the claim, unless the defendant has the right to possess part of the land of this case, the defendant is obligated to remove part of the building of this case to the plaintiff and deliver part of the land of this case to the plaintiff.
B. On March 1, 2007, the Defendant’s assertion 1) purchased and resided in the building of this case constructed at least 44 square meters and 40 square meters and at least 20 years ago, E-road 44 square meters and f 40 square meters adjacent to the land of this case. The Defendant was aware that the building of this case was on the land of this case owned by the Defendant, and thus, the Defendant occupied and used part of the land of this case owned by the Plaintiff as the site of the building of this case. As such, the period of possession of the previous owner was completed on January 1, 2017 after the lapse of 20 years from January 1, 1997, including the period of possession by the previous owner. Accordingly, the Plaintiff’s claim against the Defendant for which the period of prescription of possession has expired should be dismissed. 2) The Defendant’s assertion that there was insufficient evidence to acknowledge that part of the land of this case was occupied by the Defendant for over 20 years.