간판철거
1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.
2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.
1. Basic facts
A. On November 20, 2013, the Plaintiff leased part of the building (206.28 square meters (62.4 square meters) on the whole and the second floor (hereinafter “instant building”) as KRW 2, B, C, D, E, F, G, H, and I (hereinafter “the lessor of this case”) from January 1, 2014 to December 31, 2018, the lease deposit amount of KRW 250,000,000, and the rent of KRW 20,50,000,000.
B. On September 2014, the Defendant leased the remainder of the second floor of the instant building from the instant lessor.
C. Before the Defendant moved into the instant building on September 2014, the Plaintiff completed the test of the body of outer walls between the first and second floors of the instant building, and the outer walls between the second and third floors of the instant building, with the color, the body of the outer walls, etc. designated by a contract concluded between the Plaintiff and the Plaintiff and the Posnb Korea Korea Co., Ltd. (Ford Ssing and Service Korea), and attached the door “Ford LINCONHV Mos” to the outer walls between the second and third floors.
After moving into the building of this case on September 2014, the Defendant installed the signboard "(hereinafter "the signboard of this case")" on the outer wall between the first floor and the second floor of the building of this case.
[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap 1-8 evidence, Eul 1-1 evidence, the purport of the whole pleadings
2. Determination
A. In full view of the purport of Eul evidence No. 1 and all the arguments as to the claim for obstruction and distribution based on possessory right, the defendant has installed the signboard of this case only on the outer wall part of the second floor of the building that the defendant leased and occupied, and it appears that the lessor of this case obtained consent from the head of Nowon-gu, the head of the competent Gu, in the process of obtaining permission for the installation of outdoor advertisements from the head of Nowon-gu. Thus, according to the above facts of recognition, it is insufficient to recognize the fact that the defendant interfered with the plaintiff's possession by exceeding the limit of admission and there is no other evidence
Therefore, it is true.