beta
Text
1. Of the 674m2 in Jung-gu Incheon Metropolitan City D, Defendant C indicated in the attached Form 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, and 8, respectively.
Reasons
1. Basic facts
A. The Jung-gu Incheon Jung-gu E division (hereinafter “Defendant’s land”) and D division 674 square meters (hereinafter “Plaintiff’s land”) are adjoining to each other, and there are buildings not registered without permission with a size of 150 square meters per floor (hereinafter “instant building”) over each of the above land, such as the attached drawing.
B. Of the Plaintiff’s land, the instant building accounts for an area equal to 36 square meters on the ground level 1st floor (hereinafter “instant site”) that connects each point of (A) of the attached drawings in sequence of indication 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, and 8 of the attached drawings among the land on the part of the Plaintiff.
C. At the time of July 200, the Plaintiff and F entered into a sales contract to purchase the Plaintiff’s land from G with the Plaintiff’s land owner, and the Plaintiff entered into the sales contract with the content of the purchase of the instant building.
After all, the plaintiff and the FF completed the registration of ownership transfer on the plaintiff's land on August 1, 200.
Around January 202, 2002, Defendant C entered into a sales contract to purchase the Defendant’s land from H, the land owner on the part of the Defendant at the time of Defendant C’s own mother, and at this time, Defendant C entered into a sales contract to purchase the instant building together.
Since then, the defendant C completed the transfer of ownership on March 6, 2002 on the land on the part of the defendant.
E. Defendant B currently resides in the instant building.
[Basis] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 2, 3, 5, 7, 9, 10, 11, Eul evidence Nos. 2, 3, 7, and 8, and the purport of the whole pleadings
2. Determination
A. As to the Plaintiff’s primary claim, the Plaintiff asserted that, with respect to the instant building, the former owner G was subrogated by the former owner G in subrogation of the former owner G, he/she may subrogate the Defendants’ right to delivery. Based on this, the Plaintiff sought delivery of the instant building from the Defendants.
The plaintiff purchased G and the building of this case.