beta
Text
1. For the plaintiffs:
(a) Selected B Co., Ltd. shall have the real property listed in the separate sheet;
B. The defendant (appointed) is the party.
Reasons
1. Determination as to the cause of claim
A. In fact, the Plaintiffs jointly occupied the real estate indicated in the separate sheet by concluding a system security contract with E from November 201, 2016 with respect to the total number of 17 households of the instant apartment, including real estate indicated in the separate sheet, with the claim for construction cost arising from the new construction of the instant apartment on the ground D apartment (hereinafter “instant apartment”) outside C, Cheongju-si, Cheongju-si, and five lots of land (hereinafter “instant apartment”). 2) In the auction procedure for the real estate rental on the real estate stated in the separate sheet, the appointed company B acquired the real estate listed in the separate sheet 1, and the Defendant (Appointed Party) acquired the real estate listed in the separate sheet 2, respectively.
(1) On January 11, 2019, F employee H, at the direction of G representative G, Inc. F (hereinafter “F”), extracted and damaged any confidential key set up by the Plaintiffs by using a hole in each door of the real estate listed in the separate sheet. After excluding the plaintiffs’ occupation by using it, the Defendants acquired possession of the real estate listed in the separate sheet No. 1 and the Defendant (Appointed Party) listed in the separate sheet No. 2 as indicated in the separate sheet. 【The Defendants acquired possession of the real estate listed in the separate sheet No. 1 and 2 as indicated in the separate sheet. 【The fact that there is no ground for recognition, the entry in the separate sheet No. 1 and No. 12, and the purport of the entire pleadings.
B. The claim for the return of possession of the object stipulated in Article 204(1) of the Civil Act is sufficient to prove that the plaintiffs occupied the object, but have been deprived of it by the defendants, and there is no need to prove that the possession of the object is based on the principal right.
(See Supreme Court Decision 2010Da2459 Decided March 29, 2012). In light of the foregoing legal doctrine, according to the foregoing facts, the Plaintiffs who occupied the real estate on the ground of the right of retention as stated in the separate sheet do not depend on their intent.