건물등철거
1. The defendant's appeal is dismissed.
2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Defendant.
Purport of claim and appeal
1..
1. The reasoning of the court's explanation concerning this case is as stated in the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance, except for adding the following judgments as to the defendant's defense in the trial of the court of first instance. Thus, it is citing it as it is by the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure
2. Additional determination
A. Defendant’s defense 1) The instant arrangement on the removal of the factory in accordance with the instant letter of performance results in the Defendant’s removal of the factory in the instant case by the Korea City Bank and the Korean National Bank, which has a right to collateral security, or resulting in the Defendant’s obstruction of exercise of rights provided for in the Criminal Act. 2) The said arrangement infringes on the Defendant’s property right guaranteed by the Constitution and the Civil Act, and seriously deprives or limits the freedom of business or economic activities
3) Therefore, the above agreement constitutes an anti-social legal act stipulated in Article 103 of the Civil Act and is null and void. (b) First, as to the assertion that the agreement for the removal of the factory of this case (hereinafter “instant agreement”) under the written statement of the performance of this case resulted in having caused or inducing the Defendant to commit a crime of obstruction of right, it may be acknowledged that the establishment registration of a neighboring mortgage of KRW 516,00,000 for the factory of this case has been completed with respect to the obligee’s national bank, the maximum debt amount, KRW 516,00,000. However, the Defendant may remove the factory of this case in accordance with the instant agreement after the Defendant fully discharged the secured debt of the foregoing right to collateral security. Thus, the content of the instant agreement does not necessarily lead to the conclusion that the Defendant would have prevented the Defendant from committing a crime of obstruction of right or encourage him to restrain
2. Next, regarding the assertion that the instant agreement infringes on the Defendant’s property right as prescribed by the Constitution and the Civil Act, and deprives the Defendant of or significantly limit the freedom of business, etc., evidence Nos. 1, 9, 14, 15, 17 is attached.