점유회수
1. The plaintiff's appeal is all dismissed.
2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Plaintiff.
The purport of the claim and appeal is the purport of the appeal.
1. The grounds for admitting the judgment of the court of first instance as to this case are as stated in the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance, except for changing the part of "" into the part of "" under the following part of the judgment of the court of first instance, and therefore, the relevant description, including the attached Form, is cited in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.
Article 204(1) of the Civil Act provides that “When a person has deprived of the object possessed as a lien holder, he/she may demand the return of the said object.” In such a claim for the recovery of possession, the term “Possession” refers to the objective relationship in which the object appears to be subject to the factual control by social norms. In order to have a factual control, it shall not necessarily mean that the object belongs to the said person’s physical and actual control, but shall be determined on the basis of social norms, taking into account the time, space and principal relation with the object, the possibility of excluding others’ control, etc. (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 95Da8713, Aug. 23, 1996). Based on these legal principles, the instant case is to be considered as being carried out on the 20th anniversary of the instant construction work, and the Plaintiff’s testimony from the 20th anniversary of the instant construction work, to the 20th day of the instant building’s 201st day of the instant construction work.