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. Facts of recognition 1) The Plaintiff’s real estate listed in the separate sheet (hereinafter “instant land”).
(2) On November 28, 2014, the Defendants completed the registration of ownership transfer on the ground of sale by voluntary auction as to the previous district court’s indictment on November 25, 2014, No. 14242, Nov. 25, 2014. (2) The Defendants occupy the said part (a) in the state where containers were installed in the part (a) of the instant land connected in sequence with the point of indication 1, 2, 3, 4, and 1 of the annexed drawings among the instant land.
[Reasons for Recognition] Facts without a partial dispute, entry of Gap evidence 1, purport of the whole pleadings
B. According to the above facts of recognition, the Defendants occupied the above part of the instant land owned by the Plaintiff, and thereby interfered with the Plaintiff’s exercise of ownership.
Therefore, barring special circumstances, the Defendants are jointly obligated to remove the containers installed in the above part of paragraph (a) to the Plaintiff and pay the amount equivalent to the rent to the Plaintiff’s unjust enrichment until transferring the land to the Plaintiff.
2. Determination as to the defendants' defense
A. Fact-finding 1) The Defendants’ claim for construction price against the Defendants is that D on January 29, 2013 (the actual owner of the instant land and the contractual party are the husband of D.
A) As to the construction project that newly constructs housing on the instant land, the contract amount of KRW 270,000 was concluded (hereinafter “instant contract”).
(2) On April 30, 2013, the Defendants: (a) completed a new house construction work according to the instant contract; (b) completed a completion inspection from the Seoul Metropolitan Government Office at the Jeonsi-si; (c) on May 31, 2013, the Defendants received only KRW 15.78 million out of the construction cost; and (d) did not receive the remainder of the construction cost; (b) on the electric district court F compulsory auction case; and (c) on the part of Defendant B, Defendant B, a creditor of lien reporting the lien, filed an application for a compulsory auction against the instant land and new building on the ground with the Jeonju District CourtF; and (d) on June 26, 2013, the court rendered a decision