토지인도
1. The Defendants remove the buildings indicated in the attached Table 2 list on the land indicated in the attached Table 1 list to the Plaintiff, and the said land.
1. The land listed in the [Attachment 1] List as to the cause of the claim (hereinafter “instant land”) is owned by the Plaintiff, and the facts that the Defendants owned the buildings listed in the annexed Table 2 List on the ground of the instant land (hereinafter “instant building”) do not conflict between the parties, or can be acknowledged in full view of the entries in the annexed Table 2 List on the ground of the instant land and the overall purport of the pleadings.
According to the above facts, the Defendants are obligated to remove the instant building on the ground of the instant land and deliver the instant land to the Plaintiff, except in extenuating circumstances.
2. Judgment on the defendants' assertion
A. In around 1950, the Defendants, at the time of the instant land, owned the instant building by constructing the instant building with the consent to use the instant land from C, who was the owner of the instant land, and otherwise owned the building for sale or other reasons without a special agreement to remove the building. Thus, there was no special agreement between the parties to remove the building even when the building belongs to another person due to the change in ownership of the instant land and building. Therefore, the Defendants acquired statutory superficies as to the instant land under the customary law.
In addition, the plaintiff is obligated to purchase the building of this case at a reasonable price.
In addition, the plaintiff did not implement the regional housing association project within the land of this case, and in particular, there is no benefit in receiving the land of this case due to the decision on commencing auction of this case, and rather objectively violates social order. Thus, the plaintiff's claim cannot be allowed as abuse of rights.
B. The circumstances alleged by the Defendants are that there is no room for establishing legal superficies under the customary law on the instant land, and therefore, it cannot be deemed that the Plaintiff was obligated to purchase the instant building, and the Plaintiff’s claim cannot be deemed as abuse of rights.