건물명도
1. The defendant shall order the plaintiff to write down the real estate stated in the attached list.
2. The costs of the lawsuit are assessed against the defendant.
3...
1. In full view of the purport of the entire pleadings as to the statement No. 1 of the judgment as to the cause of the claim, it is recognized that the Plaintiff completed registration of preservation of ownership on the real estate listed in the separate sheet (hereinafter “instant house”) on December 18, 2015, and that the Defendant occupied the instant house without the Plaintiff’s consent at present.
According to the above facts, the defendant, the possessor of the house of this case, is obligated to order the plaintiff, the owner of the house of this case.
2. Judgment on the defendant's defense
A. Defendant’s assertion 1) The registration of preservation of ownership in the name of the Plaintiff on the instant housing was made from the previous owner in accordance with the title trust agreement between C and the Plaintiff, a title trustee, pursuant to the Act on the Registration of Real Estate under Actual Titleholder’s Name, and is null and void. As such, the Plaintiff is not the owner of the instant housing (hereinafter “the first
(2) The Defendant is unable to comply with the Plaintiff’s claim before receiving KRW 39,60,000 for construction cost, since it was subcontracted for construction of the entire aggregate building including the instant housing from D (Representative E) and did not receive construction cost of KRW 39,600,000 from December 5, 1993.
(hereinafter referred to as the “section 2”). (b)
Judgment
1) The evidence submitted as to the first proposal alone is insufficient to recognize that the registration of preservation of ownership in the name of the plaintiff as to the instant housing was made in accordance with the title trust agreement between the plaintiff and C, and there is no other evidence to prove this otherwise. Therefore, this part of the defendant's assertion is without merit. The evidence submitted as to the second proposal alone is insufficient to recognize that the defendant has a legitimate lien to occupy the instant housing, and there is no other evidence to prove this otherwise, and therefore, the defendant's assertion on
3. Conclusion.