beta
Text
1. The defendant shall be the plaintiff.
A. Of the land size of 271 m2 in the city of official residence, each of the attached appraisal marks 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, and 1 shall be attached hereto.
Reasons
1. The Plaintiff completed the registration of ownership transfer as of November 28, 2001 with respect to each of the lands listed in paragraph (d) of Article 1 of the judgment on the cause of the claim (hereinafter “each of the lands of this case”). The Defendant is an owner of an unauthorized house and warehouse located on each of the lands of this case, and the Defendant is the owner of an unauthorized house and warehouse located on each of the lands of this case. A part of the unauthorized Housing and warehouse was constructed upon intrusion of each of the lands of this case as described in paragraphs (a) through (c) of the Disposition No. 1. The entire land of this case is used as the site for the above unauthorized Housing and Warehouse, or there is no dispute between the parties, or as a whole, the entire purport of each of the arguments entrusted for appraisal as to the director of the Korea Land Information Corporation branch at the time of request for appraisal by the Korea Land Information Corporation.
According to the above facts, the defendant, as the owner of each of the lands of this case, has the duty to remove the housing part of Paragraph (a) of Disposition No. 1, warehouse part of Disposition No. 1, warehouse part of Disposition No. 1-B, and warehouse No. 1-C, respectively, and deliver each of the lands of this case to the plaintiff
2. Judgment on the defendant's assertion
A. The Defendant concluded a loan agreement for use of each of the instant lands with the former owner of each of the instant lands and the Plaintiff’s husband, and the Plaintiff agreed not to terminate the said loan agreement when the Plaintiff donated each of the instant lands to the Plaintiff. Thus, the Defendant asserted to the effect that the Defendant had a legitimate title to possess each of the instant lands. Therefore, there is no evidence to deem that the loan agreement was concluded between the Plaintiff and the Defendant, or that the Plaintiff agreed not to terminate the said agreement. Thus, the Defendant’s allegation is without merit.
B. The Defendant alleged to the effect that the Plaintiff shall exercise the right to purchase the building upon the termination of the above loan agreement. As such, the Defendant examined the foregoing.