Whether or not a person may demand the exclusion of disturbance based on an invalid lease agreement.

Possessory right is a legal effect that it is granted to the possession of an object and is separate from the main right to use and benefit from it, and even if the possession is based on an invalid lease agreement, there is a possessory right by the fact of such possession. Therefore, the claim for exclusion of disturbance can be made accordingly.

Article 205 of the Civil Act

Supreme Court Decision 66Da2641 delivered on April 4, 1967 (Supreme Court Decision 103No206 Decided the summary of the decision and Article 206(2)308 of the Civil Act)

Plaintiff

Bank of Korea

Daejeon District Court of the first instance (72 Gohap429)

The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

Expenses for appeal shall be borne by the defendant.

The defendant in time of war 168-3, 168-5 No. 1, Dong-dong

The plaintiff's possession of 3 sap sap sapex and 1 factory-type 93 Gabbebbes, among others, shall not interfere with the possession of the plaintiff. The costs of the lawsuit shall be borne by the defendant.

The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

All the costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the plaintiff in the first and second instances.

Of the original judgment, the part on March 1, 1968, which entered the date on which the plaintiff leased the building of this case from the non-party was corrected to March 2, 1969, and the defendant asserted in the trial. The non-party purchased machinery that is an accessory to the automobile with the right of claim against the non-party, and constructed the building of this case, and thereafter registered the establishment of a neighboring building to the defendant in a lump sum on the above machinery and the building of this case and the site of this case. Therefore, the non-party's lease of the building of this case to the plaintiff without the approval of the Director General of Economic Planning Agency is a asset directly related to the above machinery, and the above non-party's lease of the building of this case without the approval of the Director General of Economic Planning Agency is in violation of Articles 18 and 19 of the Act on the Management and Management of Claim Fund, and it is different from the case where the right of possession of the plaintiff was granted to the non-party and it is possible to use and benefit from this case. Therefore, the plaintiff's appeal is without merit.

Judges Lee Jong-jin (Presiding Judge)