건물명도
1. The Defendants deliver to the Plaintiff the real estate indicated in the attached list.
2. The plaintiff's remaining parts against the defendants.
1. Facts of recognition;
A. On April 9, 2009, the registration of preservation of ownership was completed in the future of the plaintiff upon entrustment of the registration of provisional disposition with respect to the 1/46 shares among the instant real estate.
B. The Defendants occupy the instant real estate.
[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 3 and 4, the purport of the whole pleadings
2. Determination as to the cause of action
A. According to the facts acknowledged earlier, co-owners may seek delivery of the pertinent real estate by their own act (see the proviso of Article 265 of the Civil Act). According to the judgment on the claim for extradition, the Defendants, who possess the instant real estate, are co-owners of the instant real estate (the Plaintiff asserted that the Plaintiff actually owns the entire instant real estate on the basis of sectionally owned co-ownership relationship, but it is not sufficient to recognize it solely on the basis of the entries in the evidence Nos. 1, 2, and 5, and no other evidence to acknowledge it exists).
The Defendants asserted that the Plaintiff could not comply with the Plaintiff’s request for extradition on the ground that he directly performed the interior work of the instant real estate with the permission of the time construction (a name construction, a corporation, and a Saturdays & CC) with respect to the instant real estate and possessed the instant real estate.
However, each statement in Eul evidence Nos. 1 through 5 alone is insufficient to acknowledge the defendants' assertion, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it, and even if the lien holder is not permitted to use the real estate which is the object of the lien to another person without the owner's consent (see, e.g., Supreme Court Order 2002Ma3516, Nov. 27, 2002). There is no assertion as to the fact that the above trial corporation obtained any consent from the owner of the real estate of this case, including the plaintiff, and there is no other evidence to prove that the defendants had a legitimate possessor of the right to possess the real estate of this case.
Therefore, the above assertion by the Defendants is valid.