The opposing power of the tenant with the registration of the building;

A lessee who has a registration of a building on the site may thereafter claim the effect of the lease against the person who has acquired the ownership of the share on the site.

Article 622 of the Civil Act

Plaintiff 1 and one other

Defendant 1 and four others

Daejeon District Court (74Gahap42) in the first instance

1. The parts concerning Defendant 5, 2, 3, and 4 in the original judgment shall be modified as follows:

(a)For the plaintiffs:

(1) Defendant 5, among the 30-3 large 57 square meters and 4th 4th o'bbes in the large exhibition, delivered 19-4 Hobbes in total by removing 13th 13th Hunbbes in the same building on the part of the ship, as well as 4th 4,352 won in each month from April 9, 197 to the completion of delivery, the amount of money in proportion to 19-4,352 won in each month.

(2) Defendant 4 shall leave the section of the building described in paragraph (1) above.

(3) Defendant 2, among the above 30-3 sites, removed the above 30-3 land from the 5th anniversary of the above 5th anniversary of the above 30-3 square meters of the above drawings, and the above 5th anniversary of the above 5th anniversary of the above 30-3 site, the above 5th square meters of the land, and the above 5th of the land, and the above 5th of the land, in order to deliver 3th of 5th of the land, and the above 1,301th of the monthly amount from April 9, 1973 to the completion of delivery, shall be paid.

(4) Defendant 3, among the above 30-3 sites, shall remove 6 bbebbebs on board a ship which connects the above 30-3 site, ba, ca, and each point in sequence, and deliver 6 bbebs on the site, and pay 134 won per month from April 9, 1973 to the completion of delivery.

(B) The plaintiffs' remaining claims against the defendants 5, 2, and 3 are dismissed.

2. The plaintiffs' appeals against the defendant 1 and the appeals against the defendant 5, 2, and 3 are dismissed, respectively.

3. Of the costs of lawsuit, the part arising between the plaintiffs and the defendants 5, 2, 4, and 3 is borne by both the first and the second instances, and the costs of appeal against the defendants 1 are borne by the plaintiffs.

4. Provisional execution shall be limited to the above part of the monetary payment.

The plaintiffs shall revoke the part of the original judgment against the plaintiffs. (The original payment part shall be extended from the trial) The plaintiffs, from among the 31-10 to 79-7 Hobbes, defendant 1 shall remove the parts of the ship connecting each of the above 44-2 Hobbes and the above drawings, 44-2 Hobs and the above drawings, 17-3 9-13-3-13-3-17-17-17-17-17-17-17-17-17-17-17-17-17-17-17-17-3, and the defendant 1-3-4-3-3-19-3-19-3-14-19-3-14-17-17-17-17-17-17-19-3-14-19-17-14-196-3-3-194-17-3-194-3-3-3-3-19-3-17.

Costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Defendants in both the first and second instances, and a declaration of provisional execution;

Defendant 5, 2, 3, etc. shall revoke the part against the above Defendants in the original judgment.

The plaintiffs' claims against the above part are dismissed.

The judgment of both the first and second courts that the litigation costs shall be borne by the plaintiffs.

1. According to the contents of No. 2-1, No. 3-2 (A's certified copy of the register, No. 1-3 and No. 5-1; hereinafter the same shall apply) without dispute over the establishment of No. 3-1, No. 4-1, and No. 31-7, such as No. 30-3 and No. 79-1, can be recognized that all shares of No. 31 are transferred to the plaintiffs. However, since the defendant 5, No. 2 and No. 4 conflict with the registration of ownership of No. 1, No. 2-4 and No. 6-1, no dispute over the establishment of No. 1, No. 66-1, No. 7, and No. 1, No. 66-1, No. 7, and No. 1, No.

2. Comprehensively taking account of the appraisal result of Nonparty 7 and the purport of the above appraisal by the lower court, Defendant 1: (a) owned 31-10 square meters of the building site; (b) owned 31 square meters of the building site; (c) owned 3 square meters of the building site; (d) owned 3 square meters of the building site; (c) owned 3 square meters of the building site; (d) owned 3 square meters of the building site; (e) owned 5 square meters of the building site; (e) owned 3 square meters of the building site; and (e) owned 3 square meters of the building site; and (v) owned 3 square meters of the building site; (v) owned 3 square meters of the building site; and (v) owned 3 square meters of the building site; and (v) owned 17 square meters of the building site; and (v) owned 3 square meters of the building site by the Defendants; and (v) owned 10 square meters of the building site and the building site adjoining 30 square meters of the building site.

(A) Defendant 1’s defense is that the above ground building was properly leased from Nonparty 4, and the above ground building purchased from Nonparty 4 and completed the registration of transfer. Thus, considering the following facts, Defendant 1’s contents and testimony of Nonparty 5-2 and 3 (a lease contract, sales certificate) which are admitted to be genuine due to Nonparty 8’s testimony, the above Defendant purchased the main building from Nonparty 9 and completed the registration of ownership transfer as of October 16, 69, and the above Defendant’s registration of ownership transfer as of 31-10 of the above ground building as of 31-10, which is the co-owner at the time of the above building, and the above Defendant’s claim against the above part of the building was lawful since 8/13, more than half of the majority of the above building site as to the above ground building, and it is clear that the above part of the building was reverted to Nonparty 4 before the conclusion of the lease contract, and it can be acknowledged that the above part of the building’s claim against the plaintiffs’ co-ownership was legitimate since 16th of the above building site.

(B) Defendant 5 and 2, etc. purchased 30-3 of the present site from Nonparty 4, a co-owner at the time of March 21, 1963 as to the 30-3 of the present site, and Defendant 2 re-printed the occupied part from Defendant 5 on July 10, 1963 to Nonparty 10 on July 30, 1963. Thus, the above Defendants dispute that the above Defendants had legitimate right to possess the above occupied part, and thus, the part of the testimony by Nonparty 11 of the lower court, which corresponds thereto, cannot be trusted, and the evidence No. 2-2 of the evidence No. 2, cannot be admitted as evidence, and all of the evidence presented by the Defendants are without merit.

(C) In addition, Defendant 2 is a road connected to the public road and used for the passage of the Defendant and neighboring residents. As the exercise of the Plaintiffs’ private rights is restricted under Article 5 of the Road Act, the Plaintiffs cannot respond to the Plaintiffs’ claim for delivery and return of unjust enrichment, and the Defendant's claim is disputed to the purport that the Plaintiff's claim is unjust because he owns a house on the ground of 30-9 adjacent to the site in this case and uses it as a passage to the surrounding land. Thus, the Defendant's claim is disputed to the purport that it is unjust. Thus, according to the appraisal result of Nonparty 7 and the result of on-site inspection by the lower court, the above Defendant's possession portion cannot be deemed as a road under the Road Act (it is not applicable mutatis mutandis under the Road Act, nor can it be deemed as a private road under the Private Road Act) and the above 30-9 site and the public road under the Private Road Act. Thus, it seems that the Defendant's defense is groundless.

Thus, Defendant 5, 2, and 3 have no evidence as to the legitimate right to possess this site. The above defendants are obligated to remove each building owned by them as stated in Paragraph 1 (a) and deliver the site and the occupied part to the plaintiffs who are in the status of co-ownership right holder as to this site, and Defendant 4 is obligated to leave the occupied part.

3. Furthermore, we examine the Plaintiffs’ claim for return of unjust enrichment.

(A) As seen earlier, Defendant 5, 2, and 3, etc. occupy their respective possession without legitimate title. Ultimately, possession is to gain profit from the rent-free possession and thereby to inflict damage on the plaintiffs, who are co-owners of this site. According to the evidence No. 2-1 and No. 2 as seen earlier, it is recognized that the date of the final acquisition of the plaintiffs' above ownership was April 9, 1973. The above defendant et al. is the person possessing the above possession before the above date. According to the result of the appraisal by Nonparty 12.3 as of Apr. 9, 1973 to Jun. 3, 1974. Since it is clear that the above portion of possession is less than 3.3 as to each of the above three months from Apr. 9, 1973 to Jun. 3, 1974 (hereinafter the above part below) 】 Defendant 5 】 11,316 won (the above portion of possession is less than 34.35 won,35 won).37

(B) The plaintiffs seek the return of unjust enrichment from the rent party by possessing the occupied portion of the claim stated in the above defendant 1 without any legal ground. However, as stated in the above 2-A, the above defendant lawfully leased it from the non-party 4 who is the majority right holder of the site of this case and legitimately occupied the occupied portion. Thus, the plaintiffs' claim under the premise that the possession is without legal ground is without merit.

4. Therefore, as indicated in the Disposition No. 1 (A), Defendant 5, 2, 3, etc., as indicated in the Disposition No. 1 (A) are obligated to remove each of their own buildings and deliver each of their respective possessions to the plaintiffs. From April 9, 1973 to the completion of their delivery, Defendant 5 is obligated to pay 4,352 won per month, 1,301 won per month, 134 won per month, 134 won, and 134 won per month, and 5,2, and 3’s appeals against Defendant 1 and their respective appeals against Defendant 5,2, 3, and 4 are dismissed without merit. Accordingly, the part of the judgment of the court below as to the plaintiffs’ appeal against Defendant 1 and the defendant 2, and the remainder of the appeal against Defendant 3 and the defendant 2, as stated in the Disposition No. 965 of the Civil Procedure Act is dismissed. All of these appeals are without merit.

Judges Park Young-young (Presiding Judge)