건물등철거
1. The Plaintiff:
A. The defendant C is each indicated in the attached reference sheet No. 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, and 1 among the 4,760§³ of D forest land in the East Sea.
1. In full view of the statement in Gap evidence Nos. 1 and 4 as to the cause of the claim and the result of the on-site inspection conducted by this court, the appraiser Eul's appraisal result shows that the building unregistered on the ground of "A" part 75m2 of the "A" connected in order to each point of 1,2,3,4,4,5,60m2 (hereinafter "the forest of this case") among the land of this case owned by the plaintiff Eul is located in the attached reference 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, and 1, and the defendant Eul leased the building of this case to the defendant Eul without compensation around July 26, 2009, and the fact that the defendant Eul currently resides in the building of this case can be acknowledged.
According to the above facts, the owner of the building of this case or the de facto disposal authority has the duty to remove the building of this case to the plaintiff unless he has a legitimate title to possess part of the forest of this case, and the defendant B has the duty to withdraw from the building of this case.
As to the plaintiff's seeking removal of the building of this case against the defendant C, since the defendant C is the owner of the building of this case as the owner of the building of this case and the defendant C does not have the obligation to remove the building of this case, according to each of the statements in Dop, Eul evidence Nos. 2, 5-1 and 2, G constructed the building of this case around 1967. Since G died on October 31, 1989, H (the defendant C's punishment) whose name was changed to F (the defendant C's punishment) after H died on November 9, 1997.
However, in a case where a building constructed on another's land is unregistered and the ownership of the building is infringed on by that building, the duty to remove the building is a person who is in a position to legally and practically dispose of it (see Supreme Court Decision 91Da11278, Jun. 11, 1991). The mere fact that the building is registered as the owner in the tax ledger on the tax ledger of unregistered building of this case can legally dispose of the building in this case.