A. On April 13, 2015, the Plaintiff completed the registration of ownership transfer based on sale due to voluntary auction on the same day with respect to the land listed in the separate sheet (hereinafter “instant land”) on April 13, 2015, and the fact that the Defendant is the owner of each building listed in paragraph (1) of the disposition on the instant land (hereinafter “instant building”) is no dispute between the parties.

Therefore, the defendant is obligated to remove the building of this case and deliver the site of the building to the plaintiff, except in extenuating circumstances.

B. The defendant's assertion 1) asserts to the purport that the defendant is the owner of the building of this case, and thus, the claim for removal of the building of this case is unjustifiable. However, even if the defendant is the owner of the building of this case, if he does not have the right to possess the building of this case, he is obligated to remove the building of this case to the plaintiff who is the owner of the land of this case. Since there is no proof of assertion as to the right to occupy the building of this case for the purpose of owning the building of this case, the defendant's above assertion is without merit. 2) Further, the defendant argues that the plaintiff's claim for removal of the building of this case is not intended to harm the defendant only, and that removal of the building of this case which is only two years after its new construction

However, even if the exercise of the right results in excessive damage to the other party than the benefit that the right holder gains from society and economy, the exercise of the right is intended to cause damage to the other party, and the social function of the right is neglected by disregarding the social function of the right, such as for the purpose of causing damage to the other party, or causing an unreasonable result that cannot be objectively permitted under our common sense.