beta
Text
1. Defendant B:
A. The attached Table 26 through 29, and 26, of “appraisal map” on the land of 1,012 square meters in Jung-gu, Jung-gu.
Reasons
1. Determination as to the claim against the defendant B
A. The following facts may be acknowledged in full view of the following facts: (a) there is no dispute between the parties; (b) the entry of Gap evidence 1-2; and (c) the result of the on-site inspection conducted by this court; and (d) the purport of
1) On May 9, 2008, the Plaintiff is deemed to be the land of this case, E in Jung-gu, Jung-gu, Jung-si (hereinafter “instant land”).
(2) As to the instant land, Defendant B owned a warehouse in Paragraph (1) of this case on the ground of this case prior to the Plaintiff’s acquisition of ownership on the instant land, a main body in Section (1) of this case, and a part toilet in Section (3) of this case (hereinafter “instant building”).
B. According to the above facts, Defendant B possessed the instant building on the ground of the instant land, which is owned by the Plaintiff, and occupied the relevant site part. Thus, barring any special circumstance, such as the recognition of the possessory right holder, it is deemed that the instant building was removed, and that part 96 square meters in part (a) and (b) 234 square meters in main body, and part 5 square meters in part (c) (hereinafter “instant building site”).
2) Defendant B established legal superficies under customary law on the instant building.
Since it is alleged that there exists a lien or a lien, the ownership of the land and the building at the time of the disposal should belong to the same person in order to establish legal superficies under common law. There is no evidence to prove that the land in this case belongs to the ownership of Defendant B. Moreover, the lien is a security right as the secured claim against the claim arising on another person’s goods, and the building in this case is not owned by the Plaintiff as the ownership of Defendant B. Thus, the above claim in Defendant B is without merit without any need to further examine the remainder.
C. Judgment 1 on the claim for unjust enrichment