Judgment

In light of the facts and circumstances revealed by the court below, the following circumstances, i.e., even if the provisional building of this case constitutes an illegal building, as long as the defendants actually control the above building, such possession should be protected. However, E intended to remove the above building by force without following legitimate procedures, such as civil procedure or compulsory execution procedure, and by force, to remove the above building (as at the time of this case, the defendants did not have the right to possess the leased object such as the above building, in relation to E, the lessor at the time of this case)

Even if the court below properly stated, the right to possess only one of the simultaneous performance relationships has been extinguished.

Nor can the Defendants be exempted from the limitation of the method of remedying rights, such as legal procedures, but the Defendants had been subject to the removal plan, etc. in advance.

The same applies to E, however, tried to remove the pertinent building in order to avoid the imposition of compulsory payment of several million won by implementing a corrective order to remove the building of this case, which was issued by the office of the Nam-gu Seoul Metropolitan City, Ulsan Metropolitan City.

However, in light of the fact that the Defendants were able to dispute the above administrative disposition through legitimate administrative litigation due to proving that they are not directly managed or controlled, etc., but attempted to remove the E and the removal company or the removal company, the case was occupied by the Defendants.