건물퇴거
1. The Plaintiff, Defendant B, and Defendant C, respectively, on the building listed in the attached Table 1, and on the building listed in the attached Table 2.
1. On April 1, 2009, the Plaintiff purchased and owned 187.6 square meters (hereinafter “instant land”) from the Busan District Court D's voluntary auction procedure for real estate held on April 1, 2009, the fact that the Defendant B purchased 101 square meters on the ground (hereinafter “instant building”) and Defendant C occupied Ga does not conflict between the parties.
Therefore, barring special circumstances, the Defendants are obliged to withdraw from each occupied part of the instant building to the Plaintiff, barring special circumstances.
2. On the determination of the Defendants’ assertion, the Defendants asserted that the right of retention exists with respect to the claim for construction cost as the secured claim against the instant building, and thus, the Plaintiff’s claim cannot be complied with
Even if a building occupant has a lien on the building to the owner, if the existence and possession of the building are to be a tort against the owner of the land, such a lien may not be set up against the owner of the land.
(See Supreme Court Decision 87Meu3073 Decided February 14, 1989, etc. In this case, according to the evidence No. 1 (including the provisional number) in this case, the Plaintiff filed a lawsuit against the Defendant B, the owner of the instant building, and the occupant of the instant building after the bid for the instant land, and rendered a favorable judgment in full against the Defendant B, who was the owner of the instant building, and the owner of the instant building, and rendered a favorable judgment. Although the Defendant B, etc. filed an appeal and a final appeal, it was all dismissed, and the said judgment became final and conclusive on June 30, 2014.
According to the above facts, the existence and possession of the building of this case constitute tort against the plaintiff, who is the owner of the land of this case, and even if the right of retention on the building of this case is recognized, it cannot be asserted against the plaintiff. Thus, the defendants' above assertion is without merit.
3. If so, the plaintiff's conclusion of this case against the defendants.