beta
Text
1. The defendant
(a) remove the buildings listed in Annex 2;
(b) Appendix 1.
Reasons
1. Judgment on the plaintiff's claim
A. 1) The land listed in paragraph 1 of the attached Table C owned by C (hereinafter “instant site”).
(2) On November 8, 2007, the Gwangju District Court rendered a decision of permission for sale on November 28, 2016 to acquire the ownership of the instant site upon the Plaintiff’s decision of permission for sale on June 28, 2016. (2) On May 30, 2008, the instant building was destroyed or lost on December 2007. With respect to the instant building site, the decision of commencement of voluntary auction was rendered to Gwangju District Court D on November 10, 2014. The instant building site was transferred to E on May 30, 208.
3) The building listed in the attached list No. 2 (hereinafter “instant building”)
In relation to the new construction around September 2008, the registration of ownership transfer was completed in the name of Gwangju District Court No. 152488 of Sep. 12, 2008. After the registration of ownership transfer was completed in the name of E, Gwangju District Court No. 152489 of Sep. 12, 2008. The provisional registration of the right to claim ownership transfer was completed in the name of F as of Sep. 12, 2008. On Dec. 26, 2008, the registration of the transfer of the right to claim ownership transfer was completed to the defendant (the former Central Creditor Accounting Co., Ltd.) and the registration of ownership transfer was completed in the Defendant on the same day. 4) The market price of the instant site was approximately KRW 159,867,000
[Reasons for Recognition] Unsatisfy, Gap evidence 1 to 5, Eul evidence 1 to 4, the purport of the whole pleadings
B. According to the above facts of recognition, the defendant owned the building of this case on the site of this case owned by the plaintiff and infringed on the plaintiff's ownership. Thus, the defendant is obligated to remove the building of this case and deliver the building of this case to the plaintiff.
In addition, there is no dispute between the parties as to the annual return rate of 4% due to the rent of the instant site, and the Defendant is the Plaintiff by the date of completion of delivery or the date of loss of the Plaintiff’s ownership.