beta
Text
1. The defendant has each point of the attached Table 25, 26, 11, 10, 9, 8, 7, 24, and 25, among the land size of 504 square meters in Gwangju-si, Gwangju-si.
Reasons
1. Basic facts
A. The Plaintiff is the Plaintiff’s ownership of 504 square meters in Gwangju-si, Gwangju-si (hereinafter “the Plaintiff’s land”). The Defendant is the owner of DJ 298 square meters in Gwangju-si, adjacent to the Plaintiff’s land (hereinafter “the Defendant’s land”) and the two-story buildings listed in the attached table on the land (hereinafter “Defendant’s building”).
B. Of the Plaintiff’s land, there are concrete fences installed on the ground of 25, 26, 11, 10, 9, 8, 7, 24, and 25, the attached appraisal drawings among the Plaintiff’s land, on the ground of 22, 3, and 44m2 (hereinafter “the part of the land in dispute of this case”), and some of the two floors of the Defendant’s building of this case are located.
[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1-1, Gap evidence 2-1, Gap evidence 3-1 and 2-2, the result of the on-site inspection conducted by this court, the result of the appraiser E's survey and appraisal conducted by appraiser E, the result of the fact inquiry into the land cadastral construction conducted by this court, the purport of the whole pleadings
2. The assertion and judgment
A. According to the facts of the determination as to the claim causes for removal of walls, building structures, and land delivery, the Defendant is obligated to remove the fence and part of the wall and the second floor of the Defendant’s building located on the ground of the instant dispute to the Plaintiff, barring any special circumstances.
(2) The judgment on the Defendant’s assertion (A) held that both the Plaintiff’s land and the Defendant’s land were owned by the networkF. The Defendant’s land was the original building of agricultural warehouse owned by the networkF. However, around May 23, 2003, the Defendant installed a fence on the land in the instant dispute in the process of remodeling the said warehouse into the store. The Defendant purchased the said warehouse building and the fence installed by the networkF on May 30, 2003 from the networkF along with the said warehouse building and the fence installed by the networkF. At the time, the Plaintiff’s land was still owned by the networkF. Accordingly, the Defendant’s land in the instant dispute portion was still owned by the networkF.