beta
Text
1. The defendant shall be the plaintiff.
(a) Of the land listed in the separate sheet, each point of the attached sheet Nos. 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, and 1.
Reasons
1. The fact that the Plaintiff acquired the ownership of the land listed in the separate sheet on August 24, 2018, and the Defendant, among the land listed in the separate sheet, constructed a building on the ground of 288 square meters for part 1 in the connected ship (hereinafter “instant part of land”) and occupied and used, in sequence of each point listed in the annexed sheet Nos. 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, and 1 among the land listed in the separate sheet, may be recognized by taking into account the following facts: (a) there is no dispute between the parties; or (b) there is no evidence between the parties, and all
Therefore, barring special circumstances, the Defendant, who occupied the instant land portion without permission, shall remove and remove the said building, etc. to the Plaintiff, the owner, and deliver the relevant land portion.
In addition, comprehensively taking account of the entire purport of the argument by appraiser C as a result of appraisal of rent, the rent of the above part of the land from August 24, 2018 to September 23, 2019 is KRW 8,881,00, and the amount equivalent to the monthly rent as of September 23, 2019 is 718,800. Since it can be confirmed that the rent thereafter is the same amount, the Defendant is obligated to pay to the Plaintiff the unjust enrichment calculated by the ratio of KRW 8,81,00 in total for 14 months from August 24, 2018 to September 23, 2019, the date of acquisition of the Plaintiff’s ownership, and from September 24, 2019 to September 23, 2019, the Defendant is obligated to pay the Plaintiff the unjust enrichment calculated by the ratio of KRW 718,800 per month.
(2) As to the Defendant’s assertion, the Defendant asserted that the land portion of the instant case should be claimed in advance, as long as the Defendant asserted the Plaintiff’s claim and did not deliver the land portion of the instant case. 2. As such, the Defendant asserted to the effect that the said possession is justifiable on the ground that the land portion of the instant case constitutes so-called cadastral inconsistency
However, if a certain land is registered as a parcel of land based on a cadastral record, the location, lot number, land category, land category, and boundary of the land are consistent with the boundary of the first cadastral map, and then the original cadastral map is destroyed.