지료
1. All appeals filed by the Defendant (Counterclaim Plaintiff) are dismissed.
2. The costs of appeal are borne by the Defendant (Counterclaim Plaintiff).
A principal lawsuit and a counterclaim shall be deemed simultaneously.
1. Basic facts
A. The Plaintiff is an owner of land for factory B with the window B of Changwon-si, Changwon-si, 7864 square meters.
B. The Defendant was awarded a bid for the shares of D Co-owners, Ltd. (hereinafter “D”) of the buildings listed in paragraphs (2) and (3) of the attached Table Nos. 2 and (3) of the attached Table Nos. 2 and (3) located on the ground of the land listed in the attached Table No. 1 (hereinafter “instant land”) (hereinafter “Attachment Nos. 2 and 3”), and completed the registration of ownership transfer on October 23, 2014, after being awarded a bid for the shares of D Co-owners, Ltd. (hereinafter “D”) of the buildings listed in subparagraphs 2 and 3, and completed the registration of ownership transfer on October 23, 2014.
C. Meanwhile, around that time, the Plaintiff occupied and used the instant building, and delivered the building No. 2 on March 24, 2015 and the building No. 3 on April 5, 2015 to the Defendant respectively.
[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 2, 4, 5, and 6 (including each number; hereinafter the same shall apply) and the purport of the whole pleadings
2. Determination as to the principal lawsuit
A. The Plaintiff’s assertion 1) The Defendant: (a) from October 17, 2014, acquired shares in the instant building from the time of acquiring the land from October 17, 2018 to the time when it occupied the instant land; (b) as to the instant land, D, a co-owner of the instant building, has a statutory superficies under the customary law; and (c) the Defendant acquired the said D’s shares through auction, also acquired the said statutory superficies; (b) even though the Plaintiff could use the instant land within the scope for using the instant building based on the statutory superficies, it is currently unable to use the said land, and thus, is not obliged to pay rent.
C. Even if the Defendant’s obligation to pay the rent is recognized, it is reasonable to the rent that the Plaintiff occurred during the period of his own use of the instant building.