A. From around August 2010, the Plaintiff occupied the building as indicated in the Disposition No. 1 (hereinafter “instant building”). However, the Defendant filed a lawsuit against the Plaintiff seeking delivery, etc. of the instant building by asserting that he/she is the owner of the instant building, and received a favorable judgment against the Seoul Central District Court 2013Kadan130810, and accordingly, delivered and executed the instant building on August 14, 2014, and until now, the Defendant occupied the instant building.

B. However, the judgment in favor of the above provisional execution sentence was revoked by the Seoul Central District Court Decision 2014Na40809, the appellate court, and the above appellate judgment became final and conclusive on June 5, 2015.

[Reasons for Recognition] The entry of Gap's evidence Nos. 1 through 7 and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. According to the above facts of recognition as to the cause of claim, the defendant received the building of this case possessed by the plaintiff as a compulsory execution of the judgment of delivery of the provisional execution sentence book. Since the above judgment was revoked and confirmed, it was delivered by illegal compulsory execution. Thus, it constitutes a case where the defendant illegally deprived of the plaintiff's possession.

Therefore, the Defendant is obligated to deliver the instant building to the Plaintiff as the occupant pursuant to Article 204(1) of the Civil Act.

3. The defendant did not have the right to possess the building of this case.

or the instant building cannot respond to the Plaintiff’s claim on the ground that it is owned by the Defendant.

In doing so, the Plaintiff’s claim to the effect that it is an abuse of litigation or abuse of rights without benefit of lawsuit.

However, the right to demand the exclusion of disturbance based on the possessory right does not require the actual control of the object, that is, if there is an act of interference with the possessory right, the establishment of the act of interference with the possessory right, and the right to demand the recovery of possession is not required to justify the possession.