건물등철거 등
1. The defendant's appeal is dismissed.
2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Defendant.
Purport of claim and appeal
1..
1. The reasons for the court's explanation concerning this case is insufficient to recognize that the defendant had possessed the title No. 1 and No. 2 of this case with the intention of the court of first instance, and that the defendant had possessed the title No. 4, No. 15 of the judgment No. 4, No. 6, and No. 7 of the 7, "No evidence exists to prove that the period for the defendant's possession of the title No. 1 and No. 2 of this case has expired," and that "No evidence No. 6-1, No. 2, and No. 8 of the 6-1, No. 9-1, No. 16-1, No. 10 of the evidence No. 1 to No. 1, No. 16-1, and testimony of the witness G of the court of first instance is insufficient to recognize that the defendant had possessed the title No. 1 and No. 2 of this case with the intention of the court of first instance for twenty years, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge this otherwise. 420 of the judgment.
【Additional Judgment Matters】 The Defendant asserts that the Plaintiff’s transfer of ownership of the land Nos. 1 and 2 from the Hague ELF Co., Ltd. constitutes a litigation trust, the main purpose of which is to allow the Plaintiff to conduct litigation, and thus is null and void.
However, there is no evidence to support that the sales contract for the land Nos. 1 and 2 between the Plaintiff and the Hague ELF Co., Ltd. was concluded solely for the purpose of conducting procedural acts. Thus, the above assertion by the Defendant is without merit.
The defendant asserts that the abuse of rights or the principle of good faith is against the abuse of rights and the principle of good faith, because the land Nos. 1 and 2 of this case falls under the cultural property protection area as a private HMI site, and even if the land Nos. 1 and 2 of this case were removed, there is little benefit that the plaintiff can gain, while the defendant will suffer enormous damages, and the defendant will remove the building and remove the building against the residents living in the whole land of this case, the former owner of the land No. 1 and 2 of this case.