건물등철거 등
1. All appeals by the Defendants are dismissed.
2. The costs of appeal are assessed against the Defendants.
Purport of claim and appeal
1.
1. The reasoning for the court’s explanation concerning this case is that “from February 23, 2013 to February 22, 2014,” which read “from February 23, 2013 to February 22, 2014,” and Paragraph 2, which read “from February 23, 2013 to February 22, 2014.”
The part of the “determination on the Defendant’s argument” in the item is as stated in the reasoning of the judgment of the first instance except for dismissal as follows, and thus, it is acceptable in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.
2. B. The defendants' assertion 1) The defendants asserted that the statute of limitations for the acquisition of possession on January 29, 2003, which was 20 years after the date of the possession of the building in this case after the registration of ownership preservation on January 29, 1983, had been occupied by "the part inside the female" among the part of the crime in this case, and even according to the pledge prepared by the defendant B on September 15, 1993, the above "the inside part of the female" did not have bad faith without permission. The defendant B asserted that the prescription for the inside part of the above female was completed on January 29, 2003, when 20 years have passed since the date of the possession.
On the other hand, the issue of whether the possessor’s possession is an intention of possession or a possession with no intention of possession is determined by the internal deliberation of the possessor rather than by the internal deliberation of the possessor, but by the nature of the title that caused the acquisition of possession or all circumstances related to the possession. Thus, it is objectively objective that the possessor is proved that he/she acquired possession on the basis of the title that he/she does not have the intention of ownership due to its nature, or that he/she does not act with the intent of exercising exclusive control like his/her own property by excluding another’s ownership.