beta
Text
1. The Defendant, among the 71m2 in the 71m2, prior to Chungcheongnam-si, shall turn in order to the Plaintiff each point of the indication of the attached drawing No. 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 14 and 1.
Reasons
Facts of recognition
The Plaintiff is the owner of 71 square meters prior to C, 96 square meters prior to C in Chungcheongnam-si, and 92 square meters prior to E in Chungcheongnam-si (hereinafter “instant land”).
Of the instant land, the Defendant owns a house for mentor brick on the ground, which is a total of 92 square meters inboard, B, and C (i.e., a portion of 54 square meters in part, 30 square meters in part, 54 square meters in part, 8, 7, 8, 9, 10, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, and 14, which are linked in sequence to each of the instant items, among the instant land.
(hereinafter “instant building.” According to the fact that there is no dispute over the ground for recognition, each entry of Gap evidence Nos. 1 and 2 (including paper numbers, hereinafter the same), and the purport of the whole pleadings, the defendant owns the instant building on the instant land owned by the plaintiff. Thus, the defendant is obligated to remove the instant building and deliver the land to the plaintiff, barring special circumstances.
In regard to this, the defendant asserted that the defendant committed an act, such as preventing loss of land caused by heavy rain by paying more than the rent for the land in this case, but the submitted evidence alone does not prove such fact, and it is difficult to view that such circumstance alone alone can oppose the claim for removal, etc. of the landowner.
In addition, the Defendant asserts that, after being damaged by heavy rain on July 20, 198, 100 won, 10 me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me about 20,00 meters in length, and 2,489,00 won with the cost of urban gas construction on June 16, 2010, 3, 200 won with the cost of water supply construction on June 15, 2016, 4. 96,000 won with the cost of flood disaster restoration on September 3, 2018, 5, the Defendant asserts that the land in this case is obliged to pay the cost of water from various kinds of fruits (such as pine trees 6 weeks, me me me me me me me me me me me.).
First, the defendant is in accordance with any legal basis.