beta
(영문) 창원지방법원 진주지원 2021.01.15 2020가단30053

건물등철거

Text

Defendant C’s 13,097,670 Won and its related 5% per annum from November 10, 2020 to January 15, 2021.

Reasons

1. Determination as to the removal of the instant building and the transfer of land

A. (1) The judgment as to the cause of the claim (1) was completed and owned by Defendant B on October 10, 200 on the ground of the successful bid for the auction held on September 26, 200 by force on September 10, 200, which was owned by Defendant C, the Plaintiff acquired the ownership by winning a successful bid for the above land in the voluntary auction proceeding conducted on February 23, 2007 by Jinwon District Court Jinwon Branch Branch Branch, Jinwon Branch, and the Defendants owned the above building (hereinafter “the instant building”) and occupied the above building on December 1, 2002. The Defendants did not have any dispute between the above Defendants C and C.

the parties have no dispute between them, or are recognized by each entry of Gap evidence 1 to 5 (including numbers, hereinafter the same shall apply).

(2) Determination A) Based on the determination as to the primary claim, the Plaintiff’s primary claim of this case premised on Defendant B as the owner of the building above is based on the premise that Defendant B is the owner of the building above, and there is no reason to view the Plaintiff’s primary claim of this case, and thus, the Plaintiff

B) According to the above facts finding as to selective claims, Defendant C is obligated to remove the instant building on the ground and deliver the said land to the Plaintiff, the owner of the instant land, barring any special circumstance.

B. (1) The summary of the Defendants’ assertion (1) was that Defendant B completed the registration of ownership transfer on October 10, 200 on the ground of the successful bid by compulsory auction on September 26, 2000 on the land of this case owned by Defendant C, and Defendant C constructed the instant building and owned it until now around 1993, and there was no lease relationship with Defendant B.