건물명도(인도)
1. Defendant B and C are listed in the 1st floor E among the buildings listed in the separate sheet, and Defendant D are listed in the 4th floor F among the same buildings.
Even in cases where an owner of land is entitled to request the owner of a building to remove the building and deliver the site thereof on account of a lack of the right to use the building for its existence, if a person other than the owner of the building occupies the building, the owner of land shall not implement the removal, etc. of the building unless the possession of the building is removed.
Therefore, the land ownership is deemed to have been interfered with the smooth realization of the land by the above possession. Therefore, the land owner may request the possessor of the building to withdraw from the building as an exclusion of interference based on his own ownership.
This does not change because the building occupant as a lessee from the owner of the building has the so-called opposing power.
According to the statements in Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 5, the plaintiff (appointed party; hereinafter "the plaintiff") and the Selection G (hereinafter "Appointed") purchased each of the above lands on June 20, 2017 in the voluntary auction procedure with respect to H and I land and completed the registration of ownership transfer at the ratio of shares of plaintiffs 1/10 and 9/10 on June 21, 2017. Defendant B and C among the buildings listed in the separate sheet of each of the above land, and Defendant D occupy the 1st floor E among the buildings listed in the separate sheet of each of the above land, and Defendant D has the duty to remove the buildings listed in the separate sheet, and the Defendants, not the building owners, have the duty to leave the part occupied.
As to this, Defendant D has leased and resided from J the fourth floor F of the same building, and therefore, the plaintiff needs to leave.
Although there is no dispute over the Gu, so long as the building should be removed, it cannot be set up against the landowner by the lease contract for the building. Therefore, the above assertion by Defendant D is without merit.
Thus, the plaintiff's claim against the defendants is justified, and this is accepted.