건물퇴거
1. With respect to the Plaintiff (Appointed), Appointed F, G, and H, among buildings listed in the separate sheet:
A. Defendant B and C shall be in annexed Form.
1. Judgment on the grounds of the plaintiffs' claims
A. In around 2003, L was newly built on the ground of the Eunpyeong-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government M large 248 square meters (hereinafter “instant land”) owned by himself, multi-household housing with the fourth floor of reinforced concrete structure (six households, such as electric power sector 101, 201, 202, 201, 302, 302, 401, and 101 among them, are buildings listed in the attached list).
The Plaintiffs leased and resided from L immediately after the construction of the above multi-household house, and acquired the ownership of the instant land by paying the sales price on June 5, 2006 in the Seoul Western District Court N real estate auction case on the instant land.
(Co-ownership: 1/7 shares).O(P) acquired the ownership of real estate listed in the separate sheet by paying the sale price on August 22, 2008, after receiving a decision to permit the highest provisional sale of the buildings listed in the separate sheet in the Seoul Western District Court Qu and R(Dual) real estate compulsory auction for each of the above multi-households, including buildings listed in the separate sheet.
The plaintiffs, co-owners of the land of this case, filed a lawsuit against O, the owner of the real estate listed in the separate sheet constructed on the ground, seeking the removal of the building listed in the separate sheet as Seoul Eastern District Court 2009Kadan3091, and the delivery of the land of this case and the payment of unjust enrichment equivalent to rent.
On August 20, 2010, the Seoul Eastern District Court rendered a judgment that O shall not have the right to use the land of this case, such as statutory superficies, and that the removal and delivery claim of the plaintiffs shall be accepted, but the claim for unjust enrichment may be partially accepted and the cited part may be provisionally executed. The above judgment became final and conclusive by dismissal of appeal and dismissal of appeal.
Defendant B and C are married couple, and they are “101 on board a ship which connects each point of the attached table Nos. 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 11, 12, and 3 among the buildings listed in the attached list.”