beta
Text
1. The defendant shall be the plaintiff.
A. Of the 109 square meters in Changwon-si, Changwon-si, the attached Table 1 appraisal map shall be marked 7, 6, 3, 9, 8, 7.
Reasons
1. Determination on the cause of the claim
A. Facts of recognition 1) The Plaintiff is the head of Changwon-si, Changwon-si C large-109 square meters (hereinafter “instant land”).
2) The Defendant is the owner of the land listed in Annex 2 List 1 and the building listed in Annex 2 List 2 on that ground (hereinafter “Defendant-owned building”) adjacent to the Plaintiff’s land.
3) Of the instant land, the outer walls and fences of the Defendant-owned building are located on the ground of part 14.0 square meters in part (b) connected with each point of the attached Table 7, 6, 3, 9, 8, and 7, among the land in this case, on the ground of the attached Table 1-2, No. 1-2, No. 2-1, No. 2-3, and No. 3, and the result of this court’s request for the measurement, appraisal, and appraisal to the Vice Governor of the Korea Land Information Corporation, the purport of the entire pleadings.
B. According to the facts of the above recognition, the defendant is obligated to remove the outer wall and fence of the defendant's building owned by the defendant and deliver the land of 14.0 square meters in size to the plaintiff, which is located on the ground of 14.0 square meters in the part (b) of the ship connected with each of the items in the attached Table 7, 6, 3, 9, 8, and 7 among the land in this case.
2. The defendant's defense is a defense that the plaintiff's claim in this case constitutes an abuse of rights or a violation of the good faith principle.
In the following circumstances, the proportion of the area (14m2) where the outer wall and fence of the building owned by the defendant is 12.84% = 14%) among the total area (109m2) of the land of this case, the ownership of the land of this case is acquired for the purpose of constructing a carpet building on the land of this case. ② The plaintiff discovered the fact that the wall and outer wall of the building owned by the defendant was invaded with a considerable part of the land of this case, ③ as a result of the cadastral survey, the plaintiff promptly informed the defendant of this fact.