토지인도
1. All of the instant lawsuits are dismissed.
2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.
1. Summary of the plaintiff's assertion
A. On July 20, 2016, the Plaintiff entered into a contract with E to set the contract amount of KRW 1,820,000,000 for construction work of a factory on each of the instant land to the Plaintiff.
On August 2016, the Plaintiff completed civil engineering works in accordance with the above contract.
B. The Plaintiff from January 25, 2019 to the above A.
Under the contract agreement of subsection E, the right of retention has been exercised by directly occupying each of the land of this case with the preserved claim against E as the preserved claim.
However, around March 31, 2019, the Defendants: (a) moved container stuffs installed on the land of this case on the ground of the Plaintiff; (b) removed placards, safety tapes, etc. to inform the Plaintiff of the exercise of the Plaintiff’s lien; and (c) removed the Plaintiff’s possession of each land of this case by installing pents according to the boundary of each land of this case by preventing the Plaintiff’s entry.
Even if the Defendants, as seen above, lost the Plaintiff’s possession, the Defendants are deemed to constitute a person who acquired bad faith and succeeded to possession of each of the instant land from E with knowledge of the deprivation of possession by E.
C. At present, two security guards employed by the Plaintiff stay alternately and occupy each of the instant land.
Therefore, pursuant to Article 204 of the Civil Act, the Plaintiff claims the recovery of possession of each land of this case. The Defendants are obligated to deliver each land of this case to the Plaintiff.
2. Determination
A. We examine ex officio the interest in the lawsuit of this case.
The purport of the claim for the return of an article in possession based on the claim for the return of an article in possession under Article 204 of the Civil Act is that the other party to the claim shall return it to the claimant for possession. Accordingly, the other party to the claim for the return of an article in possession shall be the person who currently occupies the article in possession (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 77Da865, Dec. 13, 197). In addition, in litigation for performance