The judgment below

The part against Defendant E is reversed, and that part of the case is remanded to the Seoul High Court.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

1. Plaintiff’s ground of appeal

A. Based on its stated reasoning, the lower court determined that Defendant M, N, R, and S occupied the instant real estate BJ title through Defendant M, N, Defendant R, and S through the Intervenor (hereinafter “ Intervenor”) on the grounds of its stated reasoning.

In light of the relevant legal principles and records, the above determination by the court below is just and acceptable, and contrary to what is alleged in the grounds of appeal, there were no errors by exceeding the bounds of the principle of free evaluation of evidence against logical and empirical rules.

B. The lower court, based on its stated reasoning, determined that it was difficult for the Intervenor to recognize that the Intervenor used or lent the instant real estate beyond the scope necessary for the preservation of the said real estate without the consent of its owner.

In light of the relevant legal principles and records, the above determination by the court below is just and acceptable, and contrary to the allegations in the grounds of appeal, the court below did not err by misapprehending the legal principles on the use necessary for the preservation of the articles of custody.

C. The lower court determined that the Intervenor cannot be deemed as violating the duty to prohibit the use of the custody under Article 324(2) of the Civil Act on the ground that the Intervenor did not obtain a separate consent from the Plaintiff, a new owner, on the ground that the Intervenor did not comply with the duty to prohibit the use of the custody under Article 324(2) of the Civil Act, on the basis that the Intervenor obtained a consent to the use, etc. of the said real estate from the non-party partnership, the previous owner

In light of the relevant legal principles and records, the above judgment of the court below is just and acceptable.