(a) Description 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, and 1 of the attached Form C among ASEAN;

A. 1) On September 17, 2014, the Plaintiff is entitled to the instant land: (a) on September 17, 2014, the area of which is 123 square meters (hereinafter “instant land”).

(2) From September 6, 2012, the Defendant purchased the instant land as a public auction. (2) From around September 6, 2012, the Defendant owned the instant land and Asan City D, E, and some of the above-ground houses (in the registry, 26.45 square meters, 19.83 square meters, 19.83 square meters, hereinafter “instant house”).

3) As a result of the survey by the Korea Cadastral Corporation branch, the portion of the land on board (a) part of the instant housing (hereinafter referred to as “the land on board”) connected in sequence 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 13, and 1 in the annexed Form No. 1, 2, 3, 4, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10,

[1] The court below's determination that there was no dispute over the grounds for recognition, Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 5, Eul evidence Nos. 1, and Eul evidence Nos. 1, and the court's entrustment of measurement and appraisal to the President of the Asia District Corporation, the purport of

B. Accordingly, the Defendant, barring any special circumstance, has the duty to remove the part on the ground of the instant land among the instant housing, deliver the land of the instant land to the Plaintiff, and obtain the profit equivalent to the rent by occupying and using the land of the instant part on the instant ship, and to return unjust enrichment equivalent to the rent, as the Plaintiff, the owner of the instant part on the instant ship, who is the owner of the land of the instant part on the instant ship, sustained the loss equivalent to

2. Judgment on the defense

A. The gist of the defense is that H owned the instant land in sequence transferred to I, J, and the Plaintiff in sequence.

The instant house was owned by H around 1935, and was assigned in sequence to I, K, and the Defendant in order.

Therefore, since the land of this case and the housing of this case, which were owned by the same person, were changed by sale, the defendant has legal superficies under customary law for the ownership of the housing of this case.

(b)the land or building at issue is the same;