점유권침탈에 대한 점유회수
1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.
2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Plaintiff.
The purport of the claim and appeal is the purport of the appeal.
1. The reasoning for this part of the reasoning is the same as that of the judgment of the court of first instance, and thus, this part of the reasoning is cited in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.
2. Determination on the defense prior to the merits
A. The Defendant, who lacks the F’s representative qualification, asserts to the effect that the instant lawsuit is unlawful as it was filed by F, not a legitimate liquidator.
Even a company which is deemed to have been dissolved and the liquidation thereof has been terminated pursuant to Article 520-2 of the Commercial Act, if any relationship of rights still remains and it is necessary to be arranged in reality, it shall not be terminated within the scope thereof. In such a case, where there are other provisions in the articles of incorporation or where a general meeting of shareholders does not appoint a liquidator separately, the director at the time of dissolution of the company shall naturally become a liquidator, and where there is no such liquidator, the person appointed by the court at the request of interested parties shall be a liquidator, and only such liquidator shall be an institution executing and representing liquidation affairs of the company being liquidated (see Supreme Court Decision 94Da7607, May 27, 1994). In this case, regardless of whether the Plaintiff was registered as a liquidator on December 1, 2014 as of December 1, 2014, the Plaintiff’s liquidator shall be naturally the Plaintiff regardless of whether the latter was registered as a liquidator at the time of dissolution or whether the latter was appointed as a liquidator at the general meeting of shareholders of the Plaintiff.
Therefore, the defendant's above assertion is without merit.
B. The exclusion period between the Defendant and the special successor of L&W New Holdings, the actual possessor, and the time at which L&W New Holdings occupies the instant building from March to April, 2014. As such, the Plaintiff is in accordance with Article 204(3) of the Civil Act.