beta
Text
1. The Defendant-Counterclaim Plaintiff (Counterclaim Defendant) indicated the Plaintiff-Counterclaim Co., Ltd. 6,581m2, 22, 23, and 23m2.
Reasons
1. The Plaintiff’s determination as to the claim of the principal lawsuit is the owner of 6,581 square meters in Jeon Chang-gun, Jeonbuk-gun, the fact that the Plaintiff is a 22,23,24,40,22 square meters in the attached Table 22, 22, 23, 24, 40, and 22 attached hereto among the above land, and that the Plaintiff had a stone shed owned by the Defendant on the ground of 2 square meters in the attached Table 22, 22, 23, 24, 40, and 22, may be recognized by taking into account the following facts: (a) there is no dispute between the parties, or the evidence Nos
Thus, the defendant is obligated to remove the above part of the above land to the plaintiff and deliver the above part of the land to the plaintiff.
2. Judgment on a counterclaim
A. The Defendant’s determination on the part of the claim for removal and delivery of land is the owner of 857 square meters in Jeon Chang-gun, Jeon Chang-gun, Jeonbuk-gun, and the fact that the Plaintiff had a stone shed on the ground of 12 square meters in the part of the ship (C) attached to the attached Table No. 43, 48, 49, 50, 47, 46, 45, 44, and 43 square meters connected each of the above land in sequence 43, 48, 49, 50, 47, 46, 45, 44, and 43 square meters in sequence, or that there is no dispute between the parties, or that there is a stone shed owned by the Plaintiff on the ground of
If so, the plaintiff is obligated to remove the above part of the above land to the defendant and deliver the above part of the land to the defendant.
B. 1) The Defendant’s assertion on the part of the claim for damages damages damages damaged the appraisal of the attached Form 22,21, 20, 42, 41, and 22, among the land size of 857 square meters in order among the land size of the attached Table 22, 21, 20, 42, 41, and 22, which is owned by the Defendant, by intentionally or negligently cutting the part of 3 square meters in the ship. Accordingly, the Defendant incurred damages equivalent to KRW 8,577,800 for restoration expenses of the above part, and the Plaintiff is obliged to pay the Defendant the damages for delay indicated in the counter-claim part among the claims for restoration expenses of KRW 8,57,80 and the purport thereof. 2) The Plaintiff is obligated to pay the Defendant the damages for delay indicated in the counter-claim part among the claims for restoration expenses of the above part.