건물명도
1. The request for intervention by an independent party intervenor shall be rejected;
2. The defendant is the second floor of the real estate stated in the attached list to the plaintiff.
1. The fact that the real estate indicated in the attached list of the main office is owned by the Plaintiff, and the fact that the Defendant occupied the portion of 130 square meters in the ship (A) connected each of the above real estate in sequence with the two floors of 395.10 square meters, among the land in the attached list of the main office office, is not under dispute between the parties, or can be acknowledged by taking into account the overall purport of the pleadings, and thus, the Defendant is obliged to deliver the above portion (A) to the Plaintiff.
The defendant asserts that the defendant occupies the above section 130 square meters according to the contract for the use of office between the independent party intervenor and the defendant, and that the propriety of the claim for the principal lawsuit should be ensured depending on the existence of the right to use and benefit. However, there is no evidence to acknowledge that the independent party intervenor has the right to use and benefit against the plaintiff with respect to the area 130 square meters of the above section (A).
2. An independent party intervenor who participates in an independent party will file an application for participation of the independent party for the purpose of preventing harm against the plaintiff, and against the defendant, for the purpose of claiming the right.
In order for an independent party intervenor to participate in the claim of right under the former part of Article 79(1) of the Civil Procedure Act among participation by the independent party, the independent party intervenor must make a claim that is incompatible with the plaintiff's claim of the principal of the lawsuit against both parties or one party as the other party of the lawsuit to which the independent party intends to participate first, and the claim can be established by his own assertion in addition to
In addition, an independent party intervention under the latter part of Article 79(1) of the Civil Procedure Act is permitted in cases where it is objectively acknowledged that the plaintiff and the defendant in the principal lawsuit have an intent to impair the intervenor through the lawsuit concerned and that the lawsuit is likely to infringe on the intervenor's rights or legal status (see, e.g., Supreme Court Order 2005Ma814, Oct. 17, 2005; Supreme Court Decision 2005Da3526, 3533, Apr. 26, 2007).