건물등철거
1. The plaintiff's claim against the defendants is dismissed.
2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.
1. Basic facts
A. The J newly constructed the instant building and completed the registration of ownership preservation on March 27, 1981. After succession of K on October 11, 2002, it completed the registration of ownership transfer on July 15, 2008 by agreement and division. < Amended by Presidential Decree No. 20619, Feb. 22, 2008>
B. The Defendants agreed to lease the instant land from L, the former owner of the instant land without a fixed period of time without preparing a lease contract, but have occupied and used the instant land in return for the rent to pay 200 U.S. dollars each year in advance without any deposit for the purpose of owning the instant building on the ground (hereinafter “instant lease contract”).
C. On July 16, 2013, the Plaintiff and his spouse M (hereinafter “Plaintiff, etc.”) completed the registration of ownership transfer made on May 13, 2013 with respect to one half of each of the instant land from L for sale on July 16, 2013.
Plaintiff
On July 23, 2013, the Defendants notified the Defendants, by content-certified mail, that “the Plaintiff, etc. acquired the instant land from the former owner L on May 13, 2013, and succeeded to the instant lease agreement with the former owner, and thus, terminated the land lease agreement with the former owner. Therefore, the said notification reached the Defendants around July 25, 2013.”
E. Thereafter, the Plaintiff filed the instant lawsuit seeking removal of the instant building on July 4, 2014, and unjust enrichment on the land transfer and rent parties, while not entering into a new lease agreement without removing and delivering the instant building.
[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1, 3, 4, 7, 12, Eul evidence Nos. 1, 2 and 3 (including branch numbers; hereinafter the same shall apply) and the purport of the whole pleadings
2. The assertion and judgment
A. The Plaintiff’s assertion 1 did not delay the Plaintiff’s assertion that the Defendants were two or more different vehicles.