beta
Text
1. Of the judgment of the court of first instance, the part concerning the Defendants is modified as follows. A.
Defendant B and C shall be attached to the Plaintiff.
Reasons
1. Basic facts
A. Each of the buildings listed in the separate sheet (hereinafter “instant building”). However, on January 14, 2010, the registration of ownership transfer was completed on November 16, 2012 with respect to the respective buildings listed in paragraph (1) in the separate sheet (hereinafter “instant building”) as to the building listed in paragraph (2) as “No. 402”, “No. 302”, “No. 703”, and “No. 303” and “No. 4” as to the building listed in paragraph (3) as to the respective buildings listed in the separate sheet (hereinafter “instant building”). In addition, on November 16, 2012, the registration of ownership transfer was completed on the ground of agreement among the Plaintiff on November 12, 2008.
B. On December 13, 2012, the Plaintiff acquired all rights, such as the Plaintiff’s husband’s right to claim restitution of unjust enrichment against the Defendants, right to request the delivery of a building, etc., and was delegated with the notification of transfer. Accordingly, the Plaintiff notified the Defendants of the assignment of the instant claim by serving the duplicate of each complaint of this case.
C. Defendant B and C occupy from around October 4, 2010, Defendant D from around September 4, 2012 to around September 4, 2012; Defendant A from around August 4, 2012 to around August 4, 2010 to around August 4, 2010; Defendant G from around August 4, 2010 to around August 303, 201.
The Plaintiff asserted that the Defendants removed from the instant building when it was in the preparatory document dated June 18, 2014. However, in light of the purport of the allegations and the entire pleadings in the preparatory document dated September 3, 2014, the Defendants left the instant building, but did not deliver the key of the instant building to the Plaintiff, and rather, it appears that the Plaintiff controlled the Plaintiff’s entry through the corrective device. Thus, the Plaintiff’s allegation cannot be interpreted to mean that the Defendants did not occupy the instant building.
[Ground of Recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1, 2, 4, 5, 19 (including numbers, if any, if any; hereinafter the same shall apply).