The case holding that the act of claiming the removal of the name of the building and the removal from the office against his father and male and female who possessed without the title of his own building constitutes abuse of rights.

The case holding that the act of demanding the evacuation and eviction of his own house against his father and the male and female living together with the male and female living together, who had no urgent reason to move into the house due to the immigration in a foreign country and who supported the father who had never been living together with the aged and the male and female living together with them, constitutes an abuse of rights against his wheels.

Articles 2, 974, and 975 of the Civil Act

Plaintiff (Law Firm Seohae General Law Office, Attorneys Ansan-chul et al., Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant)

Defendant 1 and one other

Seoul District Court Decision 96Na29648 delivered on October 22, 1996

The judgment of the court below is reversed, and the case is remanded to the Seoul District Court Panel Division.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

According to the reasoning of the judgment below, the court below acknowledged the fact that Defendant 1 possessed the house at the time of the original adjudication owned by the plaintiff (hereinafter the house in this case), and Defendant 2 together resides in the house in this case with the permission of Defendant 1. The court below rejected the defendants' assertion that the plaintiff's claim in this case constitutes an abuse of rights, and accepted the plaintiff's claim in this case against the defendants seeking the evacuation or withdrawal of the house in this case.

However, according to the reasoning of the judgment below and the records, the plaintiff is a father and wife of the defendant 2, and the defendant 1 suffered from liver infection, etc., while living in the housing of this case with his wife, while living in the housing of this case with the aged aged 80 years old and suffering from high blood pressure, urology, and heart disease, etc., the aged aged 2 and 70 years old, and support the her parents with the help of other siblings and the money that the wife of the defendant 1, and the plaintiff owned the housing of this case. However, other siblingss except the plaintiff own the housing of this case do not have any special financial or economic capability. The defendants bear part of the expenses in purchasing the housing of this case. When the plaintiff purchased the housing of this case, six family members of the defendants live in the housing of this case, and the plaintiff does not live in the housing of this case, but the plaintiff does not have any urgent situation to move in the housing of this case.

For this reason, in the case of Defendant 2, since they cannot maintain their lives due to their own ability or work due to their old age and branch's illness, the plaintiff is obligated to support the defendant 2. The plaintiff is obligated to do so without any special circumstance, and the defendant 2, who is the father who has no other ground for suffering from old age and branch's disease, merely did not take any specific measures with respect to the father's residence without any special circumstance and did not take any other measures with respect to the father's residence, and merely did not take any other measures with respect to the father's residence on the ground that he is the owner of the house of this case, it constitutes an abuse of rights as an act destroying the father's body's life. Meanwhile, the plaintiff does not share his livelihood with the defendant 1, and therefore, the above defendant's duty to support the above defendant does not bear the duty to support. However, the above defendant's duty to support the defendant 2, who is the father's father's wife's child and his family's wife's family's family's living in this case should not be affected.

Nevertheless, the court below erred by misapprehending the legal principles as to abuse of rights, thereby adversely affecting the conclusion of the judgment. The ground of appeal assigning this error is with merit.

Therefore, the judgment of the court below is reversed, and the case is remanded to the court below for further proceedings consistent with this Opinion. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.

Justices Jeong Jong-ho (Presiding Justice)