beta
Text
1. Defendant B shall attach attached Form 1(1) to the Plaintiff, among the buildings listed in attached Table 2(2).
Reasons
1. Basic facts
A. The Plaintiff is the owner of the land and the building listed in paragraph (1) and paragraph (2) of the attached Table 1 (hereinafter “instant land and building”). Defendant B is the owner of the land and the building listed in paragraph (1) and paragraph (2) of the attached Table 2 (hereinafter “instant land and building”). Defendant C is the wife of Defendant B, and Defendant C operates the restaurant under the trade name “D” from the instant building.
B. The instant land No. 1 and the instant land No. 2 are adjoining as indicated in the attached Form 1. A part of the instant building owned by the Defendant B is installed on the ground of one square meter, which connected each point of the attached Form 1, No. 21, 22, 23, and 21 among the instant land owned by the Plaintiff, in sequence, among the instant land No. 1 owned by the Plaintiff.
【Ground of recognition】 The fact that there is no dispute, Gap 1-4 evidence, Eul 7 evidence, the result of the appraisal commission to appraiser E by this court, the purport of the whole pleadings
2. According to the facts as to the cause of the claim, barring any special circumstance, the obligation of exclusion of disturbance based on ownership is performed, and Defendant B, among the instant building No. 2, remove the part installed on the ground of “D” part on the ground of 1 square meter, which connects each point of No. 1, No. 21, 22, 23, and 21, among the instant building No. 1, among the instant building No. 2, to the Plaintiff,
The Plaintiff also sought delivery of the part of the above land against the Defendant C, but as the Plaintiff holds de facto disposal rights over the building by taking over unregistered buildings, the transferee is not the nominal owner of the building, barring special circumstances such as holding the building site as well as holding the building site.
No person who occupies the site of the building shall be deemed a person who occupies the site of the building.
Therefore, the defendant C's wife of the defendant B and operated the restaurant in the second building of this case. (See Supreme Court Decision 2002Da57935 delivered on November 13, 2003).