점유회수 청구
1. The plaintiff (appointed)'s claim is dismissed.
2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the plaintiff (appointed party).
1. Facts of recognition;
A. On March 26, 2012, Defendant Yangyang Agricultural Cooperative: (a) paid the bid price on April 10, 2012 after being awarded a bid in the auction procedure for real estate auction; and (b) completed the registration of ownership transfer on August 29, 2012.
B. Upon receiving an order to deliver each of the real estate to the designated parties E for the Plaintiff, the Defendant U.S. C. C.C. received the real estate delivery order from the execution officer on July 3, 2012 and received the real estate indicated in the attached list from the execution officer.
[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap 8's evidence 1, Eul 1's evidence (including provisional number), the purport of the whole pleadings
2. The Plaintiff’s assertion and the selector acquired the claim for construction cost as to the real estate stated in the separate sheet, and possessed the real estate listed in the separate sheet in order to secure the above claim, and acquired the right of retention thereon.
Defendant Amyang Agricultural Cooperative, even though it is aware that the plaintiff and the designated parties have the right of retention, was executed under the order of extradition and was deprived of possession of the plaintiff and the designated parties.
Therefore, Defendant A, who leased and occupied the real estate indicated in the separate sheet from Defendant C, the U.S.C. and the purchaser, has the duty to deliver the instant building to the Plaintiff and the purchaser.
3. In order to recognize the right of possession recovery based on the right of retention of the plaintiff and the selector, first of all, it is acknowledged that the plaintiff and the selector had occupied the building indicated in the separate sheet, claiming that the plaintiff and the selector had been deprived of possession on July 3, 2012. However, it is insufficient to recognize that the plaintiff and the selector occupied the building of this case on or around July 3, 2012, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it. Thus, the building listed in the separate sheet on July 3, 2012 by the plaintiff and the selector.