1. All appeals filed by the Defendant and the Defendant (Counterclaim Plaintiff) are dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal are assessed against the Defendant and the Defendant (Counterclaim Plaintiff).

1. Basic facts

A. As to the instant real estate, on March 7, 2007, the registration of transfer of ownership to D was completed. From July 20, 2008 to January 9, 2014, the Plaintiff operated the F’s mutual title, etc. with respect to the instant real estate.

B. On January 9, 2014, around 09:30, the Defendants destroyed the entrance doors of the instant real estate and occupied the instant real estate by intrusion upon the inside.

C. The Defendants were indicted for violation of the Punishment of Violences, etc. Act (joint property damage, etc.), violation of the Punishment of Violences, etc. Act (joint residence intrusion), and interference with business, and were sentenced to each fine of KRW 5,00,000 on December 18, 2014, under the Suwon District Court Ansan-si 2014No775.

【Ground of recognition】 The fact that there has been no dispute, entry of Gap Nos. 1, 3, 6, and 8 (including each number), the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination on the main claim

A. According to the above facts of recognition as to the cause of the claim, the plaintiff occupied the real estate of this case and went out from the possession by the defendants, barring special circumstances, the defendants are obligated to return the real estate of this case to the plaintiff under Article 204 (1) of the Civil Code, unless there are special circumstances.

B. As to the Defendants’ assertion, Defendant B is a sectional owner who purchased the instant real estate, and the Plaintiff illegally occupied the instant real estate without the title to possess the said real estate. Thus, the Plaintiff asserts that the Plaintiff cannot seek delivery of the instant real estate from the Defendants.

The actions of possessory right and actions of possessory right do not affect each other, and the actions of possessory right cannot be tried due to the grounds related to the principal right (Article 208 of the Civil Act). In the action of possessory right, it is exempted from examining only whether the person who has been deprived of possession has occupied at the time when the person who has been deprived of possession has asserted that he had deprived of possession, and the number of possession cannot be rejected on the ground that the person who has been deprived of possession has the principal right

(c).