건물등철거
1. The Defendant (Appointed Party) and the Appointed Party C, D, and E are the Plaintiff:
(a) An annex Form 257 square meters on the ground of 257 square meters in Gyeyang-gu, Yangyang-gu;
1. Basic facts
A. On April 6, 2015, the Plaintiff completed a share transfer registration as the receipt of No. 57234 on April 6, 2015, with respect to the share of 1/2 out of the F-2 257 square meters (hereinafter “instant land”).
B. G completed the registration of preservation of ownership on the 7th square meters of the sapap sap sap sap sap sap sap sap sap sap sap, before the land of this case is divided (Yyang-gu, Goyang-gu) by the Goyang District Court No. 10655, Apr. 16, 1965.
C. At present, among the land in this case, there is a cement structure in the area of 92 square meters inboard (A) section 92 square meters which connects each point of 23, 22, 21, 20, 19, 18, 17, 16, 15, 14, 13, and 23 of the annexed drawings among the land in this case, and the said housing is offered.
housing is changed through the extension of the port, etc.
C. The housing was owned by G. On September 29, 198, G died on September 29, 198, and the Defendant (appointed parties; hereinafter “Defendant”) and the designated parties C, D, and E (hereinafter “Defendant, etc.”) jointly succeeded to the housing.
[Ground of recognition] Unsatisfy, Gap evidence 2, 4, Eul evidence 1 to 5 (including numbers; hereinafter the same shall apply), Gap evidence 1, Eul evidence 1 to 5, the court's entrustment of appraisal to the chief of the high branches of the Korea Land Information Corporation, the purport of the whole pleadings
2. Determination
A. 1 Determination as to the cause of a claim is that a co-owner of land is an act of preserving jointly-owned property and may seek the delivery of co-owned land and the removal of a building on the ground that another person illegally occupies (Article 265 of the Civil Act). Meanwhile, since a building cannot exist in general regardless of the site, it may be deemed that the owner of the building occupies the land which is the site of the building. In such cases, even if the owner of the building does not actually possess the building or the site, it shall be deemed that he/she occupies the site for the ownership of the building (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2012Da72469, Jan. 25, 2017).