beta
Text
1. The plaintiff, the defendant B delivers the building listed in the attached list, and the defendant C delivers the building listed in the attached list.
Reasons
1. The Plaintiff’s determination as to the cause of the claim is that the Plaintiff owned the instant real estate from November 25, 2005, as “E,” the inspector of the D religious organization located in the attached list (hereinafter “instant real estate”) from November 25, 2005, which is the representative of the D religious organization (“E”). Defendant B, as the inspector (F) of the instant real estate from around 2009, has resided in the instant real estate from around 209. Defendant C was employed by Defendant B, and the fact that Defendant C is residing in the instant real estate is not disputed between the parties, or can be acknowledged according to the overall purport of each of the entries and evidence Nos. 1 and 2 (including the provisional number) and the entire arguments
According to the above facts of recognition, the plaintiff seeking the removal of interference based on ownership, the defendant Eul delivered the real estate of this case, and the defendant C has the duty to leave the real estate of this case.
2. Judgment on the defendants' assertion
A. (i) Defendant B purchased the instant real estate from the Plaintiff or received at least a gift from the Plaintiff through the power of delegation as of December 29, 2009 and the contract as of April 2, 2014, and thus, Defendant B has the title to possess the instant real estate.
B. In addition, Defendant B entered into a bearer agreement with the Plaintiff to permanently reside in the instant real estate through the aforementioned delegation and contract, and thus, the said real estate was entitled to possess the said real estate, and the legal doctrine on the loan for use is not applicable thereto ( even if the legal doctrine on the loan for use is applied, in light of the various circumstances, power of attorney, and the contents of the contract between the Plaintiff and the Defendant, the renewal of the Plaintiff’s contract is unreasonable), and Defendant B may employ another person within the scope of its authority to operate a temple, and thus, Defendant C employs the Defendant C.
(b) The above person’s commitment to allow the Defendant B to reside in unlimited terms as a lessee of the judgment contract.