[건물명도][미간행]
[1] The meaning and standard of determining the possession of an article
[2] The case holding that the successful bidder was deprived of the construction business operator's possession of the building in case where the successful bidder had prevented the construction business operator from entering into the building by arbitrarily replacing the locking system and publicly announcing the order to deliver real estate which has not been legally executed
Articles 192 and 204 of the Civil Act
[Plaintiff-Appellant] Plaintiff 1 and 1 other (Law Firm Domin, Attorneys Park Jae-young and 1 other, Counsel for plaintiff-appellant)
Kim Yong-han (Law Firm Barun, Attorneys Park Jong-ho et al., Counsel for defendant-appellant)
Doctrine of limited partnership
Kim Jae-in
Taejin Food Co., Ltd. (Attorneys Kim Jong-soo et al., Counsel for the defendant-appellant)
Seoul High Court Decision 2001Na27137 delivered on May 22, 2002
All appeals are dismissed. The costs of appeal are assessed against the defendant.
The grounds of appeal are examined (to the extent of supplement in case of supplemental appellate briefs not timely filed).
1. Whether the plaintiffs occupied the building of this case
The possession refers to the objective relationship that shows that the object belongs to the factual control of the person in terms of social norms, and in order to have de facto control, it does not necessarily mean that the object is physically and practically controlled, but should be judged in accordance with the social concept in consideration of the time and spatial relationship with the object, the principal right relationship with the object, the possibility of exclusion from others' control, etc. In a lawsuit for recovery of possession, it should be examined only as to whether the object has occupied at the time when the party asserts that he was deprived of possession (see Supreme Court Decision 95Da8713, Aug. 23, 1996).
According to the reasoning of the judgment below, the plaintiffs were unable to receive the construction cost from the 19th red, and they managed the building of this case while keeping the key of the building of this case. On April 14, 1998, the plaintiffs were authorized to borrow funds from the owner of the building of this case or the bond company by providing the maximum red, the site for the building of this case as security. The plaintiffs were not allowed to manufacture and distribute the rent and the sales slip of this case to use the building of this case for the construction cost by leasing the building of this case. The plaintiffs were not allowed to use the 9th 1st mar to replace the 19th mar 1 to the 9th mar mar 1 to the 9th mar mar mar 1 to the 9th mar mar mar 1 to the 9th mar mar mar mar mar mar mar mar mar mar 1 to the 19th mar mar mar mar mar.
2. Whether the defendant was deprived of possession of the plaintiffs' building of this case
Furthermore, the court below, based on its adopted evidence, concluded a contract for the security and protection services of the building of this case with Samwon Mutual Savings and Finance Company on October 6, 199, and dispatched 1 other employees, etc. of this case to the building of this case at that time to take charge of the security and protection services of the building of this case, and changed the locking system of the building of this case, which is the main entrance and exit of the owner of this case, by requesting Kim Jin who is the main agent at the end of October 1999 to change the locking system of the building of this case and the locking system of the security room of this case. However, the court below's determination that the plaintiff Kim Yong-chul applied the key of the building of this case to the building of this case to the owner of this case, which was not the owner of this case's 199, was just by the court below's misunderstanding of the legal principles as to the defendant's 1's right of entrance and exit of the building of this case.
3. Other matters.
In addition, the argument on the exclusion period in the supplemental appellate brief is apparent in the record that the lawsuit in this case was filed on August 18, 200, which was within one year from the time when the plaintiffs commenced from the plaintiffs' possession, and it is evident that there is no reason. The argument in the misapprehension of legal principles as to the validity of seizure is not only a assertion that was not submitted until the court below's decision, but also a statement in the appellate brief filed within the submission period, and therefore, it cannot be deemed a legitimate
4. Conclusion
Therefore, all appeals are dismissed, and the costs of appeal are assessed against the losing party. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.
Justices Shin Shin-chul (Presiding Justice)