건물명도(인도)
1. The defendant shall deliver to the plaintiffs the building with the indication stated in the attached real estate.
2. The costs of the lawsuit are assessed against the defendant.
1. On September 6, 2005, the plaintiff A and the defendant purchased the building indicated in the attached real estate indication (hereinafter referred to as "the building of this case") in the voluntary auction procedure (hereinafter referred to as "the building of this case") on September 6, 2005. After that, the plaintiff B purchased the defendant's share on July 26, 2013 from the defendant and completed the registration of ownership transfer on the same day. The fact that the defendant occupied and used the building of this case from September 2005 does not conflict between the parties, or that the fact that the defendant occupied and used the building of this case from September 2005 is recognized in full view of the whole purport of the pleadings
According to the above facts of recognition, the defendant is obligated to deliver the above building to the plaintiffs who are the owners of the building of this case, unless there are special circumstances.
2. The defendant's argument that ① the defendant agreed to jointly develop the real estate in the vicinity of the building of this case with the plaintiff A to distribute profits therefrom, and then used the building of this case as an office for real estate development and bear all expenses incurred in operating the office solely by the defendant. The defendant can use the building of this case until the real estate development project is completed and the profit settlement is completed, and ② since necessary expenses or profit-making expenses for the maintenance, repair, interior, etc. of the building of this case are disbursed, the above building cannot be ordered until the above expenses are repaid.
First of all, the above argument is insufficient to recognize that the defendant has the right to occupy and use the building of this case until the completion of the real estate development project and the settlement thereof is completed, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it. Thus, the above argument is without merit.
Next, as long as there is no evidence to prove that the Defendant spent the necessary or beneficial expenses for the instant building, the above assertion is without merit without further review.
3. Thus, the plaintiffs' conclusion is that of this case.