beta
Text
1. The defendant's marks 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, and 1 of the annexed drawings 1.
Reasons
1. Basic facts
A. On May 13, 1993, the Plaintiff acquired 78,377 square meters of D Forest land, Gangwon-gun, Gangwon-do (hereinafter “instant land”). On July 19, 201, the Plaintiff is the owner of the instant land who completed the registration of preservation of ownership on the instant land on July 19, 201, and the instant land constitutes 78,37 square meters of land connected in sequence to each of the following points in the attached Table 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, and 16.
B. Since before the time when the Plaintiff acquired the instant land ownership, the Defendant set up and uses a zero-store shooting range (hereinafter “instant shooting range”) on the portion of “A” connected in sequence with each point of Annex 14, 15, 15, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, and 14 among the instant land, and owned land adjacent to the instant land, and used each of the said land as a shooting range.
[Ground of recognition] The fact that there is no dispute, Gap 1, 3 through 5, Eul 2 and 4 (including a Serial number), each entry and video, the result of the request for surveying and appraisal of the Korea Land Information Corporation in this court, the purport of the whole pleadings
2. Summary of the parties' arguments
A. The Defendant used part of the instant land owned by the Plaintiff as the shooting range, and since the effective shooting range and maximum shooting range of firearms used in the said shooting range exceeds the size of the instant land, the Defendant actually occupies all of the instant land.
Therefore, the Defendant is obligated to deliver the instant land to the Plaintiff and return unjust enrichment equivalent to the rent for the entire land of this case by the date of delivery of the instant land.
In addition, as the Defendant committed the instant land and obstructed the Plaintiff’s exercise of ownership while using B and C land adjacent to the instant land as a shooting range, it does not interfere with the Plaintiff’s use of the instant land against the Defendant.