건물명도(인도)
1. The plaintiff's main claim is dismissed.
2. The defendant is a building listed in attached Table 2 to the plaintiff.
1. Basic facts
A. The land listed in the separate sheet No. 1 (hereinafter “instant land”) was owned by C, the original Defendant’s spouse, and the registration of ownership transfer was completed on May 21, 2007 under the Plaintiff’s name.
B. The Defendant is currently residing in the building listed in paragraph 2 of the attached Table No. 2, which is an unregistered building, and currently constructed on the instant land (hereinafter “instant building”) with C.
[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, entry of Gap evidence 1-1-3, purport of whole pleadings
2. Judgment as to the main claim
A. The plaintiff asserts that the plaintiff's assertion infringes on the plaintiff's ownership of the land of this case due to the building of this case, and since the defendant occupies the land of this case by residing in the building of this case, the defendant who is in the position to dispose of the building of this case is obligated to remove the building of this case and deliver the land of this case.
B. According to the judgment, since the removal of a building constitutes a factual act that constitutes a final disposition of the ownership, in principle, the owner of the building has the right to dispose of the removal. However, the person who purchased and occupies the building has no registration title as the owner on the register.
Even if a landowner is in a position to legally or factually dispose of a building in possession within the scope of his/her right, so a landowner who is illegally occupied due to the construction of the building can seek removal from the building occupant in the position above.
(2) In light of the above legal principles, the lower court did not err by misapprehending the legal doctrine as to the ownership of a building, and did not err by misapprehending the legal doctrine on the ownership of the building site. In so doing, the lower court did not err by misapprehending the legal doctrine on the ownership of the building site, as otherwise alleged in the ground of appeal.