beta
Text
1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.
2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Plaintiff.
The purport of the claim and appeal is the purport of the appeal.
Reasons
1. The reasoning of the court's explanation concerning this case is as follows, and this case is identical to that of the judgment of the court of the first instance except for addition or replacement as follows. Thus, it is acceptable to accept it as it is in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.
2. The 3rd column of the judgment of the court of first instance in the part added or maled shall be changed to “the defendant” as “the plaintiff.”
Hhhhhh in the fifth instance judgment. (2) In addition to the end of paragraph (1), the following shall be added:
According to the evidence evidence Nos. 6, 7, and 6 of "A", an execution officer, on October 10, 2014, did not met the possessor of each part of the building of this case from the first floor to the fourth floor above the ground at the time of investigating the current status and possession relation with the real estate of this case, and reported the plaintiff, etc. to the judicial assistant officer in charge as a residential lessee. The plaintiff, etc. was deemed to be a "resident." The statement of sale of the auction procedure of this case in the remarks column of the statement of sale articles in the auction procedure of this case is recognized as having stated that the lease relation is unclear because the plaintiff, etc. did not report each right." The plaintiff's assertion that "(the plaintiff was delivered to the 1, 2 of the building of this case around November 6, 2004) was insufficient to recognize the testimony of the witness's residential facility of this case."
Around November 6, 2004, the Plaintiff (the Plaintiff) closed his business from the first and second floor of the instant building under the name of Company I, but thereafter claimed that he resided in a residential facility extended to the second floor of the instant building and continued possession of part of the first floor of the instant building.
However, it is not enough to recognize the evidence No. 8 and the testimony of the witness of the first instance trial and the witness of the first instance trial.