1. Revocation of a judgment of the first instance;

2. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

3. The defendant shall attach an intervenor who accepted the plaintiff to the intervenor.

1. Basic facts

A. The real estate listed in attached list No. 1 (hereinafter “instant real estate”) was owned by G. G. As G died on June 1, 2012, C completed the registration of ownership transfer on April 15, 2013, on the ground of inheritance due to a consultation division held on June 1, 2012.

B. On March 25, 2013, the Plaintiff entered into a sales contract with Nonparty C for the instant real estate (hereinafter “instant sales contract”) and completed the registration of transfer of ownership in the Plaintiff’s name as the head of the Gwangju District Court’s registration office on April 18, 2013, as the receipt of No. 6212 on the said real estate.

C. The Defendant, as a co-inheritors of the network G, occupies the real estate listed in paragraph (2) of the attached Table No. 2, which is part of the instant real estate (hereinafter “instant telecom 207”).

The Plaintiff’s acquisition intervenor entered into a sales contract with the Plaintiff on August 27, 2014, and completed the registration of ownership transfer in the name of the Plaintiff’s acquisition intervenor on September 23, 2014.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, entry of Gap evidence 1 to 11, purport of the whole pleadings

2. The Plaintiff, without any title, asserts that the Defendant occupied the instant Moel 207, and without any title interferes with the Plaintiff’s exercise of ownership as to the instant real estate, and sought delivery of the instant Moel 207 against the Defendant.

In light of the above facts, the Plaintiff lost ownership by selling the instant real estate to the Plaintiff’s Intervenor on September 23, 2014, which was after the instant lawsuit was filed, and thus, the Plaintiff’s claim on the premise that the Plaintiff is the owner of the instant real estate is without merit.

3. Determination as to the claims of the Plaintiff-Acceptance

A. According to the above facts of recognition as to the cause of the claim, the defendant occupied the telecom 207 unit without any title, thereby infringing on the plaintiff's ownership of the plaintiff's acquisition of the real estate of this case. Thus, the defendant, barring special circumstances.