1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

1. Determination as to the cause of claim

A. On December 2016, the Plaintiff leased 27.5 square meters (hereinafter “instant housing”) out of 55 square meters of a house of 35 square meters in Gyeongnam-gun, Gyeongnam-gun, Gyeongnam-gun, a military property-owned property-owned (hereinafter “instant housing”) by setting the lease period from January 1, 2017 to December 31, 2021. The fact that the Defendant occupied a warehouse (hereinafter “instant warehouse”) constructed on the part connected to the instant housing in order of each point of the attached drawing No. 1, 2, 3, 4, and 1 adjacent to the said housing prior to the Plaintiff’s lease of the said housing. There is no dispute between the parties.

B. The gist of the cause of the Plaintiff’s claim is that the instant warehouse corresponds to the instant house and belongs to the Development Group. Since the Plaintiff leased the instant house from the Development Group, the Plaintiff has the right to lawfully possess the said warehouse as the object of the contract. Therefore, the Plaintiff seeks against the Defendant without any title to deliver the said warehouse to the Plaintiff as an exercise of the right to claim the removal of disturbance based on the possession right under Article 205(1) of the Civil Act against the Defendant who possesses the said warehouse.

C. (1) Determination: (a) The right to demand the removal of disturbance by possession right is de facto control over an article, i.e., the act of interference with the possessory right, and there is no need to have the right to justify the possession (see Supreme Court Decision 68Da1416, Jun. 30, 1970). However, the possessory right is “the right to de facto control the article” and does not have the right to use or profit from the possessory right. The right to demand the removal of disturbance or the right to demand the removal of interference with the de facto control of the article, and the warehouse of this case is the right to remove the risk of interference with or interference with the de facto control of the article. Since the plaintiff entered into the loan contract with the So-called So-called So-called So-called, the warehouse of this case has been occupied by the defendant.