(a) remove the buildings listed in the separate sheet, deliver the answer B 275m2 to the Jeonju-gun, Jeonju-gun, and B.

A. On October 20, 2010, Nonparty C obtained a building permit for the fourth-story building (hereinafter “instant housing”) on the 275 square meters in the Donju-gun, Jeonju-gun (hereinafter “instant site”) and commenced the construction on November 2, 2010, and the name of the owner D and E was successively changed during the construction.

B. On July 26, 2012, E acquired the ownership of a house during the construction of the instant site and the building thereof. On the same day, E established a collateral of KRW 260 million with the maximum debt amount to Jeonbuk Bank Co., Ltd. on the same day. At the time, the instant house was in progress after the completion of the structural construction.

C. On April 25, 2013, the Defendant acquired the instant building site and constructed to E, and filed a provisional registration for the right to claim ownership transfer in the name of Nonparty F with respect to the instant building. On March 18, 2014, the Defendant filed for registration of ownership preservation on the instant housing.

Meanwhile, on November 16, 2013, the instant land had been voluntarily decided by the Jeonju District Court G on the application of the Jeonbuk Bank Co., Ltd., a mortgagee, and the Plaintiff won ownership on November 25, 2014 upon the successful bid.

E. From November 25, 2014 to October 13, 2015, monthly rent of the instant site is KRW 223,400.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 4, Eul evidence Nos. 1, 2 and 5, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination

A. According to the above facts finding as to (i) the removal of the instant house and the request for the delivery of the site, the Defendant is obligated to remove the instant house to the Plaintiff, the owner of the instant site, and deliver the instant site to the Plaintiff, except in extenuating circumstances.

B. The defendant's argument that the plaintiff Eul acquired legal superficies under Article 366 of the Civil Act on the site of this case, and the defendant acquired legal superficies together with the ownership of this case to E, and therefore, the plaintiff's claim for removal cannot be permitted in light of the principle of good faith.

First of all, Article 366 of the Civil Code asserted by the defendant.