건물철거 등
1. In the case of the Plaintiff, the Defendant is Class 2 on the ground surface of the CJ 350 square meters above the ground structure and other 1st class above the ground.
According to the overall purport of Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 5, the plaintiff is the owner of the land of this case (hereinafter "the land of this case") and the defendant is the owner of 37.82 square meters in the office of 1st floor of Class II neighborhood living facilities on the ground of the light framed structure and other roof No. 2 of the ground surface of this case (hereinafter "the building of this case"), and the plaintiff filed a lawsuit against the defendant in this court on June 5, 2013 against the defendant on June 13, 2014. However, the court dismissed the defendant's request for the removal of the building of this case and delivery of the land of this case on the ground that the defendant acquired customary legal superficies for the ownership of the building of this case on the land of this case on June 13, 2014, and the court accepted the claim for payment of rent (3.00 square meters) and paid rent to the defendant from September 17, 2012 to the end of July 15, 2015.
According to the above facts, it is reasonable to view that the legal superficies of the Defendant’s customary legal superficies disappeared on August 4, 2015, and the Defendant has no legitimate possessory power over the instant land.
The Defendant is obligated to remove the instant building and deliver the instant land to the Plaintiff.
On August 5, 2015, the Defendant paid 280,000 won per year to the Plaintiff.
Although the plaintiff asserted that the building of this case was purchased or the plaintiff suggested that it was purchased, such ground alone does not restore the legal superficies under customary law extinguished on August 4, 2015 unless the plaintiff's consent is obtained.
We do not accept the defendant's argument.
The plaintiff's claim shall be accepted on the grounds of its reasoning, and it is so decided as per Disposition.