beta
Text
1. Defendant ELS Co., Ltd.:
A. Of the land size of 7398 square meters in Jung-gu Incheon Jung-gu, Incheon, 1,2.
Reasons
1. Facts of recognition;
A. On September 25, 198, the Plaintiff completed the registration of ownership transfer as to B forest land B in Jung-gu, Incheon (hereinafter “instant land”) and 1385 square meters of land adjacent to the instant land, Jung-gu, Incheon (hereinafter “Adjoining land”).
B. The Defendants and the KT Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “K”) concluded a lease agreement for the operation of communications facilities with respect to the adjoining land, and subsequently removed the facilities of the adjoining land and delivered the adjoining land to the Plaintiff upon termination of the lease agreement.
C. On November 28, 2001, Defendant LIBS stated that concrete and pents Plaintiff’s various written and attached appraisal on the ground of the part (i) part of 52 square meters on the ground of the attached drawing indicating 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, and 1 among the instant land (hereinafter “instant dispute land”), but, on the other hand, Defendant LIBS stated that concrete and pents Plaintiff’s various written and attached appraisal are as fences. However, on the ground of the outer dancing of the “FBS”, the term “decris” is not “cons” but “cons,” and thus, it is indicated as “pents”.
Jeonju and Telecommunications Equipment shall be installed, and the land of this case shall be installed in each of the branches A, B, C, D, E, F, and G, and the land of this case shall be occupied until now.
KT installed communications equipment, etc. on the instant dispute land from March 23, 2012 to July 20, 2017, and jointly occupied the instant land.
According to the statement No. 2 B, the Defendants and K seems to jointly possess and use the telecommunications poles installed on the same land pursuant to the "Agreement on Joint Use of Radio Station Infrastructure between Mobile Communications Operators" under Article 35 of the Telecommunications Business Act.
Unless otherwise expressly agreed, the obligation to return unjust enrichment during the joint possession period is indivisible in its nature, and each communication company is not obligated to pay the Plaintiff the unjust enrichment in duplicate during the above period.
E. Defendant Stecom shall be July 2015.