건물등철거
1. Defendant B (Appointed) against the Plaintiff:
(a) The land listed in Annex 1 List 1 is < Amended by Presidential Decree No. 2428, Dec. 1, 201>
1. Part of the claim against the defendant B
(a) Grounds for claims: Attached Form 2;
(b) Grounds: Article 208(3)3 of the Civil Procedure Act;
2. Comprehensively taking account of the overall purport of arguments as a result of the appraisal of land rent as to the claim against Defendant C and the result of the appraisal of land rent as to F by this court, the following facts can be acknowledged: (i) the land listed in paragraphs (1) and (2) of the attached Table was originally owned by Defendant C; (ii) the Plaintiff (Appointed Party) and E acquired the ownership of 1/2 of each of the above land through an auction on November 8, 2018; (iii) the single house on the land listed in paragraphs (1) and (2) of the attached Table; (iii) the single house on the land listed in paragraphs (1) and (2) of the attached Table; and (iv) the fact that the Defendant C uses or occupies it as a residence, respectively.
According to the above facts of recognition, the plaintiff (appointed party) and the selected party Eul may request the defendant C, who lives in a building not equipped with the right to use the land as a removal of interference based on ownership, to leave the building. Thus, the defendant C, barring any special circumstance, is obligated to leave the house solely on the ground and warehouse on the land specified in paragraphs (1) and (2) of the attached Table.
As to this, Defendant C alleged to the effect that the Plaintiff (Appointed Party)’s claim was contrary to the good faith principle, or that the Plaintiff (Appointed Party) renounced the auction upon receiving KRW 1 million from Defendant C. However, the circumstances alleged by Defendant C are difficult to deem that the Plaintiff’s claim by the Plaintiff (Appointed Party) is contrary to the good faith principle. However, according to the overall purport of pleading in the statement No. 1, the Plaintiff (Appointed Party) and the Appointed Party E received KRW 1 million in return for withholding the application for the qualification certificate of acquisition of farmland by October 24, 2018 during the course of negotiations with Defendant C after obtaining the buyer qualification in the auction procedure, but it is recognized that the Plaintiff and the Appointed Party received KRW 1 million in return for withholding the application by October 24, 2018.