The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

Expenses for appeal shall be borne by the defendant.

Purport of claim and appeal

purport.

1. Although the Plaintiff filed a joint claim for eviction and damages against the Defendant, the first instance court accepted only the Plaintiff’s request for eviction and dismissed the claim for damages.

As to this, the plaintiff did not appeal, and only the part against the defendant was appealed, the scope of this court's judgment is limited to the request for eviction.

2. The reasoning of the court's explanation concerning this case is as follows: 3rd to 5th to 3rd to 5th to 1st to 3th to 4th to 1st to 1st to 1

2.(b)

The part of the judgment on the claim for damages is deleted. The defendant's assertion that the court emphasizes or adds a new opinion as the grounds for appeal is identical to the statement of the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance (excluding the part of the conclusion), except for the addition of the judgment of this court under paragraph (3) below, and thus, this court's additional decision is consistent with the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act. 3. The defendant's assertion that the defendant left the building of this case on October 10, 2018 by "M, who is the defendant's possession assistant, was removed from the building of this case, but the defendant left the building of this case on October 10, 2018, but is "non-party N,O, P (hereinafter "N, etc.").

B as an assistant in possession, the Defendant continued to possess the dispute of this case, and thus, the Defendant has a legitimate possessor in possession as a lien holder.

In the statement of grounds of appeal, “The Defendant,” in addition to N et al., occupied the instant dispute from October 1, 2018 to an occupation assistant.

The Defendant’s assertion, “In the preparatory brief on November 21, 2019, submitted to the trial court,” was waiting in the vicinity of the instant building from October 7, 2018, and MA had the Plaintiff possess the instant dispute prior to the commencement of the occupation of the Lao in the instant building on October 10, 2018, and thus, the Defendant did not have been suspended from possession, and even if it was temporarily suspended.

Even if the possession has been restored again, the possession has been restored.