건물존재확인 등
1. All appeals filed by the plaintiffs are dismissed.
2. The costs of appeal are assessed against the Plaintiffs.
The purport of the claim and appeal is the purport of the appeal.
1. The facts falling under any of the following subparagraphs may be found either in dispute between the parties or in Gap evidence 1, 2, 6, Eul evidence 1 to 3, Eul evidence 1 to 4 (including additional numbers), together with the whole purport of the pleadings:
Defendant D is the owner of the instant land, which is the Seocho-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government Ero 1412 square meters and F 470.8 square meters (hereinafter referred to as “instant land”), and the proprietor of the building indicated in the attached Table 1, which was under construction as an officetel of the size of 2 underground floors, 9 floors above the ground, and 2 stories above the instant land (the construction was suspended at the level of 77.8% of the total process and did not obtain approval for use under the Building Act, but the registration of ownership was completed in the name of female source around July 5, 2002 due to a request for the registration of provisional seizure, and the proprietor of the instant building (hereinafter referred to as “instant building”).
B. On October 1, 2003 and October 31, 2007, with respect to the instant building for which legal superficies are not recognized, Plaintiff A and B are the person who acquired the right of retention for the instant building, and Plaintiff C are the person who asserted the right of retention for the instant building.
C. As a claim for removal of interference based on the ownership of the instant land, Defendant D was rendered a final and conclusive judgment in favor of the Plaintiff by filing a lawsuit for removal, etc. of the instant building against any female corporation that owned the instant building on the said ground (Seoul Central District Court Decision 2003Gahap948, Seoul High Court Decision 2003Na82909, Supreme Court Decision 2005Da9708, Supreme Court Decision 2005Da9708). Based on the above final and conclusive judgment, Defendant D filed an application for replacement of removal to G with the Seoul Central District Court on January 14, 20
On January 27, 2015, Defendant Seocho-gu received an application for the existence of a building in this case from Defendant D, and after conducting a field investigation by a public official in charge, Defendant D bears a certificate of existence of a building (Seo-gu Office Real Estate Information-2115) on February 3, 2015 in accordance with the relevant regulations.