Expenses incurred in stockpiling a stone for part of the site and thereafter a right of retention defense against the owner.

If it is recognized that the defendant, at the time of the ownership of the building site, he / she accumulated a stone shed in an amount equivalent to KRW 90,500,00 and he/she now became a complete site, the above costs invested by the defendant shall be the money disbursed to improve the above costs while he/she occupies the building site. Thus, the defendant can file a claim for reimbursement, and the above claim for reimbursement is a bond attached to the object, and thus, he/she may file a simultaneous performance defense against the owner.

Articles 320 and 203 of the Civil Act

Plaintiff 1 and one other

Kim Jong-sik

Busan District Court (67Ga4511)

The appeal is dismissed.

Expenses for appeal shall be borne by the defendant.

The defendant collected 47 to 33 p.m. 47 to 33 1 p.m. Y, Seo-gu, Busan, Seo-gu, Seo-gu, 2, 2, 32 and 14 m. o.m. 33 m. o.m. o. o. o. o. o. o. o. o. o. o. o. o. o. o. o. o. o. o. o. o. o. o. o. o. o, 10 p. o. 8 p.m. o. o. o. o, and aa. o.b. o. o.a. o

Litigation costs shall be borne by the defendant.

The original judgment shall be revoked.

The plaintiffs' claims are dismissed.

All the costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the plaintiffs in the first and second instances.

In this regard, the fact that the warehouse of each part of the order meter of the first instance judgment (attached Form 1(c) of the building owned by the defendant is one independent unit, and (a)(b) is one unit, and the defendant occupies more than 18 square meters including the above part, but not more than 8 square meters in total, 47 to 33 square meters in the Seo-gu, Seo-gu, Busan, Seo-gu, Busan, the purport of the claim for the registration of ownership transfer is about 87 to 47 to 12, and that the warehouse of the part of the order meter of the first instance judgment (attached Form 1(c) which is the building owned by the defendant is about the above part, and the fact that the defendant occupies more than 18 square meters in total, including the above part, is the defendant's person, and the case and the site occupied by the defendant is more than the above part, but the result of the appraisal by the appraiser of the first instance judgment on this point is no more trust of the appraiser of the non-party 1.

However, the above site was originally owned by the non-party limited partnership company, and the defendant leased the above site for a fixed period of five years to own the building at issue of this case on November 10, 1967. Since the company can not seek an order for the name of the site immediately to the defendant because it violates the above agreement, it constitutes a sale and purchase between the plaintiffs and the defendant, and thus, the registration of ownership transfer is completed and the claim of this case is filed with the plaintiffs. Therefore, although there is no evidence as to this point, the above argument is without merit. Thus, the land at issue cannot be viewed as the ownership of the plaintiffs, the nominal owner.

In addition, the defendant did not register the above lease contract between the defendant and the non-party company, but the purpose was to own the building owned by the defendant, and the registration of ownership preservation was made in front of the defendant on January 19, 1963. Thus, it is possible to claim the validity of the lease contract against the plaintiffs who acquired the building site in question pursuant to Article 622 of the Civil Code, but there is no evidence to support that the lease contract was made for the purpose like the defendant's head, so there is no ground for appeal on this point.

Then, the defendant also argued that even before June 25, 1967, the land price of this case was a river without a slope value even if it had been occupied by the defendant, and there was a lot of house price increase, and between this, the non-party limited partnership company sold the part of the defendant's occupation to the defendant who is trying to sell it by using the defendant to sell it to the non-party limited partnership company, and the non-party limited partnership company sold the part of the defendant's occupation to the defendant and sold it to the non-party in good faith, while the defendant did not want to raise the price, the defendant's transfer registration was made in the first place, and then the other person actually sold the similar site to the other person at KRW 5,000 per square day, and the defendant requested to purchase it to purchase it at KRW 40,000 per square day, and there is no benefit to the plaintiffs. However, the claim of this case is an abuse of the right, which is so-called claim of this case without any benefit to the plaintiff.

However, in full view of the testimony of Non-Party 4 and Non-Party 3 as stated in the evidence Nos. 4-2 and 5-1,2 and the above-mentioned testimony, and the result of the verification by the court below or the whole purport of the party's pleading, the defendant can only recognize the fact that a site at issue was complete only when the site at issue was brought about around July 1963, when it was owned by the non-party company, and there is no evidence against this, that there was an increase in the value above at present. Thus, the above costs invested by the defendant are money paid for improvement during the possession of the site at issue at issue at issue at issue at issue at issue at issue. Since the above-mentioned claims for reimbursement and the above-mentioned claims for reimbursement are attached to the object, the defendant can exercise the right to demand reimbursement at issue to the owner after the transfer, and thus, it can be allowed to make simultaneous defenses against the person who seeks the recovery at issue at issue at issue at issue at the time of the non-party company.

Therefore, the plaintiffs' claim of this case is reasonable in the judgment of the court below to the same purport, and the defendant's appeal is without merit, since the defendant's appeal is dismissed pursuant to Article 384 of the Civil Procedure Act, and it is decided as per Disposition in accordance with Articles 89 and 95 of the same Act as to the burden of appeal cost.

Judges Saples (Presiding Judge)