The case holding that there was an implied agreement between the owner of the land and the owner of the building on the ground that there was an agreement between the owner of the land and the owner of the building on the sale of the building site and the owner of the building divided in a certain amount, it cannot be deemed that there was an implied agreement that the

The case holding that the plaintiff and the defendant, the owner of the above land and buildings owned by the land, sold the above land and buildings to other 125,000,000 won, and there is an agreement that the above land and buildings should be divided into 75,00,000 won, and 50,000 won, but in light of the circumstances of the above agreement, it cannot be deemed that the plaintiff reached an implied agreement that the defendant would not demand removal of the above building, etc.

Article 105 of the Civil Act

[Judgment of the court below]

Defendant 1 and one other Defendants (Attorney Song Young-young, Counsel for the defendant-appellant)

Suwon District Court Decision 90Na4461 delivered on May 17, 1991

All appeals are dismissed.

The costs of appeal shall be assessed against the defendants.

1. Judgment on the Defendants’ legal representative’ ground of appeal No. 1

Examining the relevant evidence (in particular, the contents of the evidence No. 4 and the testimony of No. 1 and No. 2 of the first instance trial witnesses No. 2) by comparing them with the records, Defendant 2’s father rejected the Defendants’ assertion that Defendant 1 trusted the Plaintiff with the ownership of No. 1/2 of the shares in the instant land, and did not constitute an unlawful determination of facts in violation of the rules of evidence, such as evading a decision on the evidence without making a proper deliberation, as in the judgment of the court below which confirmed that the instant land was owned by the Plaintiff, as in the theory, and neglecting a decision on the whole land. Both the arguments are derived from criticism against the selection of evidence and the recognition of facts belonging to the exclusive authority of the court below,

2. Determination on the ground of appeal No. 2

In this case where the plaintiff, who is the owner of the land of this case, claims the eviction of the above land to Defendant 2, who possessed the above land while living in the building of this case constructed on the land of this case, unless the above defendant asserts and prove that he had a legitimate right to occupy the land of this case, it shall be deemed that he illegally occupies the above land. However, even if the plaintiff had had the above deceased non-party 1, who is the father of the above defendant, occupy and use the land of this case in the past, it shall not be deemed that the plaintiff has the burden of proving that there is no legitimate right to occupy the land of this case, so long as the above defendant did not assert and prove that there is a legitimate right to occupy the land of this case, the judgment of the court below that the possession of the above land of this case was illegal unless the above defendant asserts and prove that there is a legitimate right to occupy the land of this case, and there is no error of law that erroneously recognized the facts prior to the burden of proof, such as the theory of lawsuit,

3. Determination on the ground of appeal No. 3

The court below held that the plaintiff, the owner of the land of this case, and defendant 2, the owner of the building of this case, sold the above land and buildings to other 125,00,000 won with the above land and the building price of 75,00,000 won, and agreed to divide the price of the building into 50,000 won with the building price of 75,00,000 won, but it cannot be deemed that the plaintiff reached an implied agreement that the plaintiff would not require the removal of the building of this case against the defendants. In light of the circumstances of the above agreement expressed in related evidence, the court below's above fact-finding and determination of the court below are justified and it cannot be deemed that there is a violation of law as to the interpretation of the juristic act as stated in the theory of lawsuit, and there is no reason to discuss.

5. Therefore, all appeals by the Defendants are dismissed, and the costs of appeal are assessed against the Defendants, who are the losing Defendants. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating judges.

Justices Yoon Jae-ho (Presiding Justice)