유치권점유회복(반환)
1. The instant lawsuit shall be dismissed.
2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.
1. The Plaintiff’s assertion: (a) around 1966, B, whose mother was the Plaintiff’s mother, newly built a building listed in the separate sheet (hereinafter “instant building”); (b) around that time, he operated a kindergarten on the first floor and occupied the instant building while residing in the second floor; (c) the Defendant asserted that he was deprived of possession of the instant building around 1986, and sought restoration from the Defendant as the representative of the deceased B’s heir, who was the Defendant.
2. Before determining whether the exclusion period has lapsed or not, according to Article 204(3) of the Civil Code, the right to claim the recovery of possession should be exercised within one year from the date on which the possession is deprived. The above exclusion period is not sufficient to exercise the right outside trial, but should be interpreted as the so-called released period during which the lawsuit must be filed within that period.
(Supreme Court Decision 2010Da50458 Decided October 14, 2010, etc.). The instant lawsuit is sought for the recovery of possession of the instant building that the Plaintiff, the heir of the network B, was deprived of from the Defendant. As such, even according to the Plaintiff’s assertion, the date on which the Plaintiff was deprived of possession from the Defendant is around 1986, and it is apparent that the instant lawsuit was filed on October 12, 2017 at the expiration of one year from the Plaintiff. As such, the instant lawsuit is unlawful because the limitation period expires.
3. As such, the instant lawsuit is unlawful and thus, it is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.