2. 원고승계참가인에 대하여, 피고 김성구는 서울 성동구 (상세지번 생략) 대166평방미터 지상에 서 있는 세멘부럭 및 목조스레트 및 세멘와즙 평가건 주택 1동 건평 53.9평방미터중 별지도면표시 3, 4, 5, 6, 3의 각 점을 순차로 연결한 선내의 ㉮, ㉯부분 부엌 및 방 건평 11.3평방미터에서, 피고 심홍식은 같은 도면표시 9, 10, 11, 12, 9의 각 점을 순차로 연결한 선내의 ㉵, ㉶부분 부엌 및 방 건평 11.2평방미터에서, 피고 최승식은 같은 도면표시 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 13의 각 점을 순차로 연결한 선내의 ㉳, ㉴부분 부엌 및 방 건평 10평방미터에서 각 퇴거하고, 피고 김봉주는 위 건물 건평 53.9평방미터를 철거하여 위 대지를 인도하라.

3. Of the costs of appeal, the costs of appeal arising between the Plaintiff and the Defendants are assessed against each of the Defendants, if any, arising from the Plaintiff’s and the succeeding Intervenor’s motion

The plaintiff's succeeding intervenor was originally owned by the plaintiff at 680 square meters above, where the above building was located in the order for removal and removal of the above building as a ground for participation. On June 23, 1984, the above land was partitioned and registered at 438 square meters (hereinafter "the building site of this case") at 436 square meters, and completed the registration of transfer of ownership on the building site of this case on that date. He asserted that the plaintiff's succeeding intervenor's motion for removal of the above building and removal of the above building site of this case and removal of the above building site of this case were made to the plaintiff's succeeding intervenor, and that the plaintiff's transfer of ownership could not be asserted by the plaintiff's succeeding intervenor's assignment of the above building site of this case for the same time as the plaintiff's succeeding intervenor's removal and removal of the above building site of this case, and that the plaintiff's transfer of ownership could not be asserted by the plaintiff's succeeding intervenor's assertion that the above plaintiff's succession to the above building site of this case of this case would not be asserted.

2. We examine the plaintiff's claim.

The plaintiff asserts that, as the cause of the claim in this case, the size of 680 square meters is owned by the plaintiff, the defendant Kim Young-ju demanded the removal of the building as stated in Paragraph 2 of the above order owned by the defendant Kim Young-ju, the delivery of the above site, and the removal of the above site from each of the above parts among the above buildings, but the plaintiff asserts that the above site in this case where the above building was located was divided from the above site and the ownership of the above building was already transferred to him and the ownership of the above building was not owned by him, so the above claim by the plaintiff is no longer reasonable.

3. The request of the intervenor shall be considered to be made;

각 성립에 다툼이 없는 갑 제1호증(등기부등본), 갑 제11호증의 1 내지 10(각 토지대장등본)의 각 기재에 변론의 전취지를 종합하면, 분할전 종전토지인 위 438 대 197평(651평방미터)에 관하여 1975. 2. 13.자로 원고앞으로의 소유권보존등기가 경료된 다음 1978. 12. 26. 같은동 438 대 525평방미터 및 같은동 438의 1 대 126평방미터의 2필지로 분할되고, 다시 1983. 5. 18. 위 438 대지와 역시 원고의 소유명의로 등기되어 있던 같은동 439의 6 대지가 합병되어 438 대 903평방미터가 되었다가 1983. 9. 13. 위 438 대지가 같은동 438 대 218평방미터, 같은동 438의 2 대 680평방미터와 같은동 438의 3 대 50평방미터로 분할되었으며 다시 위 438의 2 대지는 1984. 6. 22. 같은동 438의 2 대 514평방미터와 이 사건 대지인 같은동 438의 4 대166평방미터로 분할되어 같은해 6. 23. 자로 이 사건 대지에 관하여 원고로부터 참가인 명의로의 소유권이전등기가 경료된 사실을 인정할 수 있으므로 이 사건 대지는 참가인의 소유토지로 추정이 되고, 성립에 다툼이 없는 을 제1호증(등기부등본)의 기재와 원심의 현장검증결과 및 당심감정인 김강문의 감정결과에 변론의 전취지를 종합하여 보면, 피고 김봉주는 이 사건 대지위에 주문 제2항기재 건물(별지도면표시 ㉮ 내지 ㉶에 해당)을 소유하면서 그 부지로서 이 사건 대지를 직접 또는 간접으로 점유, 사용하고 있는 사실 및 피고 김성구는 이 사건 건물중 별지도면표시 3, 4, 5, 6, 3의 각 점을 순차로 연결한 선내 ㉮, ㉯부분 부엌 및 방 건평 11.3평방미터를, 피고 심홍식은 같은 도면표시 9, 10, 11, 12, 9의 각 점을 순차로 연결한 선내 ㉵, ㉶부분 부엌 및 방 건평 11.2평방미터를, 피고 최승식은 같은 도면표시 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 13의 각 점을 순차로 연결한 선내 ㉳, ㉴부분 부엌 및 방 건평 10평방미터를 각 피고 김봉주로부터 임차하여 점유사용하고 있는 사실을 인정할 수 있고 달리 위 인정을 뒤집을 만한 증거가 없다.

If the facts are established, the defendants have a legitimate right to possess and use the site of this case presumed to be owned by the intervenors, unless they assert and prove themselves, they have the duty to withdraw from each of the respective possession areas of the above building and remove the above building and deliver the building site to the intervenors. Here, the defendants asserted that, around April 1940, they acquired the above building and its ground site from the non-party to the non-party to the non-party to this case for twenty (20) years since they acquired the building site of this case from the non-party to the non-party to the non-party to this case, the above defendant occupied the building site of this case in a peaceful manner for twenty (20) years as alleged above by the defendants, and the above defendant's possession of the building site of this case to the non-party to the non-party to this case for twenty (30) years after the expiration of the prescription period, the above defendant's ownership was not registered as the plaintiff's ownership at the expiration of the prescription period (see Article 84 of the Civil Act).

4. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim of this case is without merit and it is dismissed. The plaintiff's appeal is just, and the plaintiff's appeal is dismissed without merit. The plaintiff's claim is justified, and it is accepted as the plaintiff's claim, and the costs of lawsuit are borne by the losing party, and provisional execution is not attached. It is so decided as per Disposition because it is reasonable that provisional execution is not attached.

Judges Park Jae-young (Presiding Judge)