토지인도
1. All of the plaintiff's claims are dismissed.
2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.
1. Judgment on the main claim
A. The Plaintiff’s assertion acquired the ownership of each real estate listed in the separate sheet (hereinafter “each real estate of this case”). The Defendant, in accordance with the real estate trust agreement concluded with K non-Real Estate Trust Co., Ltd., has a duty to order the trust real estate when the procedures for disposal of real estate were commenced, but illegally occupied the instant real estate without any legal cause.
In particular, in the case of each real estate listed in the attached list Nos. 1 and 3, the defendant leases it to B, thereby illegally occupying it as an indirect possessor.
Therefore, the Defendant is obligated to deliver each of the instant real estate to the Plaintiff, and to pay the money stated in the purport of the claim as part of unjust enrichment equivalent to the rent from June 14, 2017.
B. In full view of the overall purport of the pleadings as a whole, the Plaintiff’s purchase of each of the instant real estate from the K non-Real Estate Trust Co., Ltd. on April 19, 2017 and completed the registration of ownership transfer on June 13, 2017.
However, it is not sufficient to recognize that the defendant possessed the real estate of this case only with the above facts and the statements or images of Gap evidence Nos. 3 through 5, 10, 16, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge them.
In addition, the Plaintiff asserts that, in the case of each real estate listed in the separate sheet Nos. 1 and 3, the Defendant leased it to B, and thus, it can seek the delivery of the real estate. However, in a case where the Plaintiff claims the delivery of the real estate on the ground of an illegal possession, it should be against the person who actually occupies the property, and as long as the illegal possessor does not actually possess it to another person even if he was the illegal possessor, the claim for delivery against the person is unfair, and thus, the request for delivery against the person is made by the Supreme Court.