A. Comprehensively taking account of the respective entries and arguments in the evidence Nos. 2 and 3 as to the cause of the claim, the Plaintiff’s completion of the registration of ownership transfer concerning the instant land on September 29, 2003, and the Defendant’s completion of the registration of ownership transfer concerning the instant building constructed on the ground of the instant land on June 25, 2019.

Therefore, barring special circumstances, the Defendant presumed to possess the instant land as the owner of the instant building is obligated to remove the instant building and deliver the instant land to the Plaintiff presumed to have been the owner of the instant land.

B. 1) The gist of the Defendant’s defense is that the land and the buildings in this case were owned by the Plaintiff. Among them, the owner of the building in this case transferred the building to another person. In this case, the owner of the building in this case established statutory superficies. Thus, the Defendant who succeeded to the building in this case belongs to the same owner of the land or the building in this case based on the statutory superficies attached to the building in this case, and there was an agreement to remove the building when the owner of the land or the building becomes different due to sale and purchase of the land or any other cause, and barring special circumstances, the owner of the building in this case obtains statutory superficies for the building (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 87Meu279, Sept. 27, 198). In addition, a person who acquired the building in this case from the owner of the building in this case and acquired the building in this case to acquire the statutory superficies from the owner of the building in accordance with the obligee’s subrogation doctrine to seek for the establishment of the superficies and the registration procedure.

This legal superficies is in the position to acquire these legal superficies.