beta
(영문) 서울중앙지방법원 2013.12.19 2012가단3478

건물명도

Text

1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

Reasons

1. Presumed factual basis

A. On May 13, 1971, the Plaintiff: (a) Jung-gu, Seoul; (b) on May 13, 1971, the same month; (c)

4. Around March 1972, the registration of ownership transfer was completed on the ground of sale and purchase. A building permit was obtained jointly with the owners of adjoining land (Seoul, Jung-gu, G, H through I, J through K), including the instant land, and completed one commercial building on the above land and adjoining land, and agreed to divide the above commercial building in proportion to the area of each trade site. Accordingly, the Plaintiff divided the part of the building listed in the separate sheet, which is part of the said commercial building (hereinafter “the instant part”), in proportion to the area of the instant land owned, and the said commercial building remains unregistered until now due to the relationship that was constructed differently from the construction permit.

B. The Defendant leased the section 33.30 square meters of the section 33.30 square meters (hereinafter referred to as the “instant store”) from the part of the instant building from the Defendant’s Intervenor C (hereinafter referred to as the “Supplementary Intervenor”) and his wife D (hereinafter referred to as “C and D, etc.”) to the third floor of the instant building, and occupied and used it from January 1, 1986 to the present point, which connects each point of the attached Form 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 10, 10, and 16.

C. As the Intervenor C died on July 6, 2013, during the instant lawsuit pending, the Intervenor taken over the lawsuit by D, the designated children L, M, N, andO.

[Reasons for Recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1 to 3, 16-1 to 4, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination as to the cause of action

A. The plaintiff's assertion is the cause of the claim in this case, and the defendant illegally occupies the store in this case, which is owned by the plaintiff without any title. Thus, the defendant delivers the store in this case to the plaintiff, and the vehicle from June 1, 1985 to the completion date of delivery of the above store.