건물명도
1. The defendant's appeal is dismissed.
2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Defendant.
Purport of claim and appeal
1..
1. As to the instant building, the registration of preservation of ownership was completed in the name of national land construction upon the entrustment of a decision to commence compulsory sale by official auction on November 20, 209; on June 17, 2013, the provisional registration of the right to claim transfer of ownership was completed in the name of a company under the entrustment of a decision to commence compulsory sale by official auction; on January 16, 2015, the Plaintiff acquired it on January 16, 2015, and completed the principal registration on March 3, 2015; the fact that the Defendant currently occupies the instant building is neither disputed between the parties nor acknowledged by comprehensively taking into account the overall purport of pleadings as to the statement
Therefore, barring special circumstances, the Defendant is obligated to deliver the instant building to the Plaintiff.
2. The defendant's assertion argues that the defendant has a legitimate possessory right since the building of this case was sold as a substitute payment unit and possessed it in peace and openly from October 29, 198.
According to the evidence No. 2, although the defendant was found to have filed a move-in report on October 29, 1998, it is difficult to view that the defendant's moving-in report on the building of this case is owned by the defendant, on the other hand, since the defendant did not complete the registration of transfer of ownership on the building of this case which was paid in substitution, and even according to the defendant's assertion, 20 years have not passed since the period of the acquisition by prescription was not passed since the above circumstances and the remaining evidence submitted by the defendant alone were insufficient to recognize that the defendant occupied the building of this case based on the
[No. 1] The plaintiff in the Busan District Court case No. 2008Gahap8846, but the land construction company, the original project operator, acquired the eight-story apartment buildings including the building of this case, and it is difficult to deem that the land construction company acquired the ownership of the building of this case. Thus, the plaintiff's request for evacuation against the defendant of the land construction company is dismissed.