2...

A. The building indicated in the attached list of real estate is an unauthorized building (hereinafter “instant building”).

The Plaintiff purchased the instant building and registered it as the owner of the instant building on an unauthorized Building Management Register.

B. The Defendant (Appointed Party) and the Appointed C (hereinafter the Defendants) are married with each other, and they reside in the instant building.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, entry of Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 3, purport of the whole pleadings

2. The plaintiff claiming delivery based on ownership is the owner of the building of this case. Since the defendants occupy the building of this case without the plaintiff's consent, the defendants are obligated to deliver the building of this case to the plaintiff.

Even if a transferee of an unregistered building without permission has not completed the registration of ownership transfer, he/she cannot acquire the ownership of the building unless the registration of ownership transfer has been completed, and cannot be deemed to have a customary real right equivalent to the ownership to the transferee

(See Supreme Court Decision 2007Da11347 Decided June 15, 2007, etc.). However, there is no evidence to deem that the Plaintiff completed the registration of ownership transfer concerning the building of this case. Thus, the above assertion based on the premise that the Plaintiff is the owner of the building of this case is without merit.

3. Comprehensively taking account of the overall purport of arguments as to the written evidence Nos. 4 and 5 of the India Claim No. 4 based on the agreement, the Defendants may recognize the fact that the Defendants received the Plaintiff’s notice from the Plaintiff that the house would be unfolded and agreed to leave the building of this case to October 15, 2014 from the instant building to the Plaintiff on September 24, 2014.

Therefore, the Defendants are obligated to deliver the instant building in accordance with the above agreement.

In regard to this, the defendant alleged to the effect that the plaintiff created a sense of fear and caused the above agreement by coercion, but there is no evidence to acknowledge the above assertion.

Next, since the defendant occupies the building of this case from September 2008, the case of this case.