beta
Text
1.On the claim that this Court alters in exchange:
A. The Plaintiff-Class A shall be one of the area of 310 square meters in Daejeon Dong-gu.
Reasons
1. According to Gap evidence Nos. 1-2, 2, 2, 3, 6, Eul evidence Nos. 9-1-4, Eul evidence Nos. 1-6, Eul evidence Nos. 1-6, Eul evidence Nos. 16, the result of the measurement and appraisal commissioned to the Daejeon East Vice Governor of the Korea Land Information Corporation in the first instance, and the whole purport of pleadings, the following facts are acknowledged.
① On May 2, 2002, with respect to the area of 310 square meters in Daejeon Dong-gu, Daejeon, the registration of ownership transfer was completed in the name of the Plaintiff Sejong-dong Association on the ground of gift on May 2, 2002. On September 14, 1994 with respect to the area of 293 square meters in E, the registration of ownership transfer was completed one-half of shares in the name of Nonparty K and Plaintiff B.
The defendant is an owner of a F.M. 1,623 square meters adjacent to the above land.
(2) The part (a) in a ship connecting each point in the order of indication 1, 2, 3, 4, 10, 11, 11, and 1 of the attached drawings among D land and E (hereinafter “the part (a) in a ship connected each point in order of indication 1, 2, 3, 4, 10, 11, and 1) and the part (a) in a ship connecting each point in the order of indication 1, 2, 4, 4, 4, 10, and 4 of the attached drawings among E land (hereinafter “the part (a) in this case”) and the part (b) 25 square meters in a ship connecting each point in the order of 4,5,6, 7, 8, 9, 10, and 4 of the attached drawings among E land.
Accordingly, even though the Defendant used the part (a) and the part (b) land connected to the land owned by the Defendant as a dry field, it is not currently occupied or used.
[The plaintiffs, after a cadastral survey was conducted during the course of the lawsuit in this case, have laid the posts and set posts on the boundary line between the part (A), (2) and the part of the land owned by the defendant] (3) The defendant committed an act, such as blocking drainage in the course of dispute with the owners of neighboring land including the plaintiffs in relation to the drainage conduits installed on the part (a) and (b) of this case and the right to passage related thereto.