beta
Text
1. The boundaries of 401m2 and 698m2 in Gunsan-si are in the order of each point indicated in the attached Form 1, 2, and 3.
Reasons
1. Determination as to the cause of claim
A. 1) Determination as to the confirmation of boundary and the request for extradition is based on the Plaintiff’s land owned by the Plaintiff in Gunsan-si (hereinafter “instant land”).
A) The Defendant is the owner of the instant land, and the Defendant is the owner of 698 square meters in Gunsan-si. The boundary of the said two lands is the line that connects each point of 1,2, and 3 indicated in the attached Form No. 1,2, and 3. 2) The part of “4 square meters in the instant land owned by the Defendant,” which connects each point of 5, 6, 7, 8, and 5 in sequence, with the indication of the attached Form No. 5, 6, 8, and 5 meters in the instant land, the part of “4 square meters in the instant land,” which is one of the main parts, 9, 10, 11, 12, and 9 in sequence, with the indication of the same drawing No. 13, 14, 15, 16, and 13 in the same order.
[Grounds for recognition] Each entry of Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 7, the appraisal result of appraiser E, the purport of the entire pleadings, and in accordance with the purport of the whole pleadings, the boundary of 3 square meters in Gunsan-si C, 401 square meters and 498 square meters in Gunsan-si, Gunsan-si shall be determined in sequence with each point of the attached Form Nos. 1, 2, and 3, and the defendant has the duty to remove each of the goods owned by the defendant within the land owned by the plaintiff of this case.
B. On February 6, 2017, the Plaintiff and the Defendant agreed not to claim all of the costs of survey, including the cost and the survey cost actually borne by the Defendant during the preparatory date for pleading on the same date. However, the Plaintiff and the Defendant agreed not to claim all of the costs of survey indicated in the evidence No. 4, and the Defendant’s burden, not to claim all of the costs of survey, but to claim half of the costs of survey, which are KRW 238,150.
In addition, there was an agreement to bear half of the appraisal costs in the litigation procedure of this case.
Accordingly, the appraisal fee in the litigation procedure of this case was actually paid by the original, the defendant, and half.
Therefore, it is true.