건물퇴거
1. The defendant shall leave the building as stated in the attached list.
2. The costs of the lawsuit are assessed against the defendant.
3.Paragraph 1.
1. Facts of recognition;
A. On June 24, 2014, the Plaintiff completed the registration of transfer of ownership based on a sale for compulsory auction for the sake of a compulsory auction with respect to 83.3 square meters in Masan-gu, Jeonju-si.
B. D completed the registration of ownership transfer with respect to the buildings listed in the separate sheet on the above land (hereinafter “instant building”) on February 26, 1972.
C. However, the Plaintiff filed a lawsuit against D seeking removal, etc. of the instant building on the ground that “D did not have the right to use the said land” (2016dada17332), and this court rendered a judgment on December 21, 2016 that “D shall remove the instant building to the Plaintiff and deliver the said land to the Plaintiff,” and the said judgment became final and conclusive around that time.
On the other hand, the defendant leased the above building from D around 2009 and occupied and used it.
【Ground for recognition】An absence of dispute, Gap No. 1-4, the purport of the whole pleading
2. Even in cases where an owner of land is allowed to request the owner of the building to remove the building and deliver the site because a misunderstanding building for determination of the cause of the claim does not have a right to use land for its existence, if a person other than the owner of the building occupies the building, the landowner shall not implement the removal, etc. of the building unless he/she removes the possession of the building.
Therefore, the land ownership is deemed to be hindered in the smooth realization of land due to the above possession. Therefore, the land owner may request the possessor of the building to withdraw from the building as an exclusion of interference according to his own ownership.
(see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2010Da43801, Aug. 19, 2010) in light of the legal principles as seen earlier, the court below held that D does not have the right to use the land for which D could oppose the Plaintiff, the landowner for the existence of the building of this case. Thus, the Defendant who leased the building of this case from D, on the ground that D had leased the building of this case.