건물명도
1. The plaintiff's main claim is dismissed.
2. The defendant shall also refer to the plaintiff from among the 5,369 square meters of the DJ Do-si.
1. Facts of recognition;
A. The Plaintiff, the representative of the Plaintiff, is a literature formed by descendants of F.F., the 16th group of F. E, for the purpose of protecting and providing funeral services for tombstones and funeral services, managing memorial and memorial services incidental thereto, and protecting and managing H(H), a building owned by the Plaintiff, and “J” (important folklore materials K).
On July 20, 1999, the Plaintiff is the owner who completed the registration of ownership transfer with respect to D & 5369 square meters (hereinafter “instant land”).
B. The instant land is the site of the instant H building, and the Defendant purchased the housing and warehouse specified in Paragraph (2) of the disposition on the part of the instant land (hereinafter “instant building”) at KRW 20 million from the former owner around July 23, 2014.
[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 4, Eul evidence Nos. 1, 2 and 3, the purport of the whole pleadings
2. Judgment as to the main claim
A. The gist of the Plaintiff’s assertion is that the instant building is owned by the Plaintiff, which was constructed by the fluor of the above E’s lighting (the Plaintiff’s fluorial damage).
Therefore, the defendant is obligated to deliver the building of this case to the plaintiff.
B. In light of the judgment, the evidence alone presented by the Plaintiff is insufficient to acknowledge the above assertion that the instant building is a building owned by the Plaintiff due to the Plaintiff’s door support, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge this otherwise, the Plaintiff’s allegation in this part is without merit.
3. According to the facts of the judgment on the conjunctive claim, the defendant is in a position to take over and dispose of the building of this case and interferes with the exercise of ownership to the land of this case, which is the site of the building of this case. Thus, the defendant is obligated to remove the building of this case to the plaintiff who exercises the right to claim the exclusion of disturbance based on ownership.
4. If so, the plaintiff's main claim of this case is dismissed without merit, and the conjunctive claim of this case is with merit.