beta
Text
1. The defendant C indicated in the attached Form No. 39, 40, 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50, and 50,000 square meters, among the 2,504 square meters and 39,000 square meters before Gangnam-si D.
Reasons
1. Claim against Defendant C
A. In a case where a transferee holds the de facto right to dispose of a building by taking over an unregistered building and thus it can be seen that the transferee also occupies the building site, the owner of the building site may seek removal and delivery against the de facto disposal authority of the building as a claim for removal of interference based on the ownership of the land.
(See Supreme Court Decision 2002Da57935 Decided November 13, 2003, etc.). Comprehensively taking account of the facts without any dispute between the parties, the entry of Gap evidence, and the purport of the entire pleadings as a result of the appraisal by the Korea Appraisal and Information Corporation, the Defendant C may recognize the fact of having the right to purchase and sell the same portion of the attached drawing in order of 39,40, 41, 42, 43, 44, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50, 51, and 39 of the attached drawing on the ground of 2,504 square meters (hereinafter “instant land”) owned by the Plaintiff, and having the right to purchase and sell the same portion of the (ma), 52,53, 54, 56, 57, 58, and 52 of the attached drawing on the ground of Gangseo-si, Seoul.
According to the above facts, the plaintiff can seek removal of interference based on the ownership of the land of this case and delivery of the part of the site to the defendant C, except in extenuating circumstances.
B. As to this, Defendant C did not claim the right for about 17 years after the Plaintiff acquired the ownership of the land of this case, and the claim for the removal of the building itself was alleged to be unjust in violation of the good faith principle. Thus, the Plaintiff’s claim for removal cannot be deemed to contravene the good faith principle. Thus, Defendant C’s above assertion is without merit.
In addition, Defendant C shall rent 20,000,000 annually the instant land for the purpose of owning a building from the Plaintiff around 2001.