beta
Text
1. Defendant T, U, V, W, Y, Z, AB, AC, AD, AE, AF, AG, AI, AJ, AM, AM, AO, AP, AP, Q, AR, AS, AT.
Reasons
1. The Plaintiff’s assertion (e.g., indication of claim) Plaintiffs are the owners of each building listed in the separate sheet No. 1 (hereinafter “each building of this case”) as shown in the separate sheet No. 2.
The Defendants jointly occupied each of the instant buildings without permission from October 12, 201 to 6, and from March 12, 2012 to June 7, 2015, respectively, with respect to the building from Nos. 1 to 5, 8, and 13 in the list of real estate attached hereto, and from March 12, 2012 to June 7, 2015.
The Plaintiffs suffered damages corresponding to the amount equivalent to the rent during the above period due to the Defendants’ unauthorized possession.
Therefore, the defendants, joint tortfeasor, are jointly liable to pay the plaintiffs the amount equivalent to the rent for the above period and the damages for delay.
2. Judgment on the claim against the defendant T, U, V, Z, AB, AD, AD, AE, AF, AI, AM, AM, AP, AP, AP, Q, AS, AS, ATS, AU, AV, AV, AX, AY, AY, and AZ by the deeming confession (Article 208(3)2 of the Civil Procedure Act)
3. Determination as to the claim against Defendant W,Y, AG, and AJ
A. Determination 1 as to the cause of the claim 1) The following facts do not conflict between the parties, or can be acknowledged by each entry of Gap evidence Nos. 2 through 5, 10, 24, 25, 27 (including each number), and each of the instant buildings is owned by the plaintiffs as shown in the separate ownership list No. 2. A)
B) At the same time, the said Defendants began to occupy the building Nos. 1 through 5, 8, and 13 in the attached Table 1’s list from October 12, 201 to occupy the building Nos. 6, and 7 in the attached Table 1’s list from March 12, 2012 without permission from March 12, 2012. (C) The Plaintiffs attempted to deliver the building of this case to Defendant AJ, etc. on October 17, 2014 with the Suwon District Court Decision 2013Gahap8790, which ordered the delivery of each of the instant buildings to Defendant AJ, etc. as executive titles, but Defendant W, AG, etc. attempted to execute the delivery of each of the instant buildings.