beta
Text
1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.
2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.
Reasons
1. Grounds for claiming the plaintiff
A. On May 2012, the Plaintiff entered into a contract with D for a new construction of 70.29 square meters of 144.72 square meters of 14.62 square meters of 2 stories of 144.62 square meters of 14.62 square meters of 2 stories of 144.62 square meters of underground floors (hereinafter “instant building”). On October 21, 2013, the Plaintiff carried out a lien on the outer wall and the underground parking lot entrance of the instant building; (a) obstructed the entrance of the instant building; and (b) exercised a lien by allowing E, who was at the door of the underground parking lot, to occupy and manage the said building.
B. On June 12, 2015, the Defendant: (a) received a successful bid of the instant building in the F compulsory auction procedure for Goyang Branched District Court on Goyang Branch on July 21, 2015; and (b) completed the registration of ownership transfer on July 21, 2015; (c) avoided the Plaintiff’s possession by leaving a banner to the effect that the building installed at the entrance of the instant underground parking lot and walked off the network, and prohibiting the outside person from entering; and (d) thus, (e) has deprived the Plaintiff’s possession.
2. Determination
A. Relevant legal doctrine refers to an objective relationship in which an object is deemed to belong to a factual control of that person under the social norms, and to have de facto control, the object is not necessarily necessarily referred to as physical and practical control, but should be determined in conformity with the concept of society by taking into account the time, space and principal relation with the object, possibility of excluding others’ control, etc.
(See Supreme Court Decision 95Da8713 delivered on August 23, 1996). When an occupant was deprived of possession, he/she may demand the return of the article in question pursuant to Article 204(1) of the Civil Act. In such a case, the request for recovery of possession should only be examined as to whether the claimant occupied the article at the time when he/she asserts that he/she was deprived of possession.
(See Supreme Court Decision 2010Da18294 Decided July 15, 2010, etc.). Possession is possessed.