1. The Defendant has each point in the order of indication 1, 2, 3, 4, and 1 of the annexed drawings among the land size of 549 square meters in Chungcheongnam-gun, Chungcheongnam-gun, Chungcheongnam-do.
A. The Plaintiff was awarded a successful bid of 549m2 in the case of the compulsory auction of real estate D in Seosan Branch of Daejeon District Court (hereinafter “instant land”) and completed the registration of ownership transfer on September 4, 2008.
Of the instant land, the Defendant is the owner and the statutory superficies of each of the instant building sites, each of which was connected in sequence 1 to 4, and 1 to 21m2, and each of the items indicated in the attached Form No. 1, 2, 5-8, and 1, connected in the ship with each of the items indicated in the attached Form No. 1, 2, 5-8, and 1.
B. With respect to the instant case between the Plaintiff and the Defendant, on July 20, 201, the said court determined the rent of KRW 100,000 per month for the land site of each of the instant building on July 20, 201, and “1. The Defendant shall pay to the Plaintiff KRW 2,50,000 (from September 4, 2008 to October 3, 201) and the amount equivalent to 20% per annum from January 15, 2011 to the day of full payment. 2. The Defendant shall pay to the Plaintiff the amount equivalent to KRW 1,00,00 per annum from October 4, 201 to the day of the Plaintiff’s loss of ownership or the Defendant’s possession.” The said decision became final and conclusive on November 1, 2011.
C. However, the defendant did not pay rent to the plaintiff at all according to the above decision of recommending reconciliation until now.
[Reasons for Recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 4, and the result of the request for surveying and appraisal of the branch offices assigned to the Korea Land Information Corporation to the Republic of Korea in this court, based on the overall purport of the pleadings, the defendant did not pay land rent to the plaintiff for more than two years even though the court decided the land rent for each building site of this case, and the fact that the plaintiff claimed the extinction of legal superficies by the delivery of the duplicate of the complaint of this case is obvious in the records.