[점유방해제거][집12(1)민,088]
It is an error of law that rejected the claim on the ground of this case as to the claim for the exclusion of interference with possession.
No claim may be rejected on the ground of the principal right against the claim for exclusion of possession.
Article 208 of the Civil Act
Highly Ro-dong
Maximum Republic of Korea
Suwon District Court Decision 63Na509 delivered on January 9, 1964
We reverse the original judgment.
The case shall be remanded to the Panel Division of the Seoul Civil District Court.
The summary of the plaintiff's grounds of appeal is unreasonable that the court below rejected the plaintiff's claim on the ground that the plaintiff did not have the right to occupy and use the river site in this case, notwithstanding the plaintiff's claim for exclusion of interference with possession on the premise that the plaintiff had the right to occupy and use the river site in this case. According to the records of this case, although the plaintiff cultivated the land in this case by agreement with the defendant who has the right to occupy and use the river site in this case, it is obvious that the defendant neglected the above agreement and interfered with the plaintiff's right to occupy and use the river site in this case, and therefore, the defendant raised a lawsuit against the plaintiff because he argued that the plaintiff's right to occupy and use the river site in this case would be neglected, and it is obvious that the defendant cultivated the river site in this case by the right to occupy and use the river site in this case and moved the land in this lawsuit for the purpose of seizing it to the plaintiff at the request of the plaintiff, and therefore, the court below rejected the plaintiff's claim on this part without permission.
However, since the lawsuit for the exclusion of disturbance is about possession, it is necessary to examine and determine whether the plaintiff's possession was in possession and whether the defendant interfered with the defendant's possession was in possession, the court below rejected the plaintiff's claim as the principal right on the ground that the plaintiff did not have the right to occupy and use the river site without deliberation and determination as to the existence of the defendant's obstruction of possession, and there is no error of law by misunderstanding the legal principles as to the possession lawsuit and incomplete deliberation. Therefore, the original judgment is reversed and the case is decided as per Disposition
The judge of the Supreme Court (Presiding Judge) of the Red Round (Presiding Judge)