beta
Text
1. The Defendants are jointly and severally liable to the Plaintiff.
(a) deliver the real estate listed in Appendix 1’s Schedule;
(b) 82,331.
Reasons
1. Basic facts
A. On July 28, 2015, the D Union filed an application for voluntary auction on the real estate listed in the attached Table 2 (E) indications (E) owned by the FF farming association corporation, G, and H farming association corporation (hereinafter “real estate listed in the attached Table 2”) with the relevant court for the commencement of auction on July 29, 2015.
B. On June 12, 2017, the Plaintiff received a decision to permit the sale of real estate listed in attached Table 2 from the above court, and paid the sale price on August 25, 2017.
C. On September 4, 2017, the Plaintiff filed an application with the Defendants and J, K, Ltd., L, the main company M, N, andO for an order for delivery of real estate to the effect that “the real estate recorded in the attached Table 2 is handed over” (hereinafter “instant order for delivery”), and the said court rendered a decision to accept the Plaintiff’s application for delivery in the instant order for delivery on March 7, 2018.
The Defendants entered into a sales contract with H farming association around May 2014 to purchase land or buildings attached Table 1 through 6 (hereinafter “instant land and buildings”), which is not only in the instant extradition order case, but also in the Gwangju District Court 2018Ra93, which is the appellate trial against it. From around December 2014, before the completion of the registration of ownership transfer for the instant land and buildings, the Defendants started possession of the instant land and buildings by being handed over from around December 2014. From around that time to January 2015, the Defendants spent KRW 124,080,618 to preserve and improve the instant building. As such, the Defendants had a legitimate right to possess the instant land and buildings on the basis of a lien that provides the Plaintiff with the right to demand reimbursement of necessary or beneficial expenses, and the right to demand reimbursement of the necessary or beneficial expenses.
In the case of the India Order and the appeal case, each of the above courts stated the Defendant.