Text
1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.
2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.
Reasons
1. The gist of the Plaintiff’s assertion is that the fence of the building owned by the Defendant was partly invaded on the instant land owned by the Plaintiff, and thus, the removal of the fence and the delivery of the affected land is sought.
2. The claim for removal and delivery of this case is based on the premise that the plaintiff can exercise ownership of the land of this case by exercising the claim for removal and removal of disturbance based on ownership.
However, according to the statement No. 1 No. 1, the Plaintiff acquired the instant land on January 6, 2015, and completed the registration of transfer of ownership based on trust in the name of the Coco Asset Trust Co., Ltd. on March 31, 2015.
A trust under the Trust Act provides that a truster shall manage and dispose of a property right for the purpose of trust by transferring a specific property right to a trustee or disposing of such property right, so if a trustee completes the registration of ownership transfer in the future on the grounds of trust, the ownership inside and outside the country is entirely transferred to the trustee, and as a result, only the trustee shall have exclusive management and disposal right over the trust property (see Supreme Court Decision 2000Da70460, Apr. 12, 2002). According to the above legal principle, the ownership of the land of this case is entirely transferred to the above trust company, which is the trustee, and the Plaintiff, the truster, cannot exercise the ownership against the Defendant, the third party. Thus, the claim of this case premised on the ownership ownership cannot be further examined.
The plaintiff asserts that according to the security trust agreement concluded with the above trust company, the truster may take measures necessary for the preservation, etc. of real estate in trust, and thus, the removal and delivery claim can be filed as preservation act. However, even if the trust agreement provides the above provisions, it is merely a provision of management obligation in the internal relationship between the truster and the trustee, and the plaintiff, who is merely the truster, is a third