beta
(영문) 광주지방법원 2016.04.06 2015나55690

건물철거 및 토지인도

Text

1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

Purport of claim and appeal

The first instance court.

Reasons

1. The following facts do not conflict between the Parties:

On January 26, 2015, the Plaintiff purchased the land listed in attached list No. 1 (hereinafter “instant land”) from C on January 26, 2015 and completed the registration of ownership transfer on January 30, 2015.

B. On January 20, 2015, the Defendant purchased a building listed in attached Table 2 (hereinafter “instant building”) on the instant land and completed the registration of ownership transfer on March 2, 2015.

2. According to the facts of the judgment on the cause of the claim, the Defendant is obligated to remove the instant building and deliver the instant land to the Plaintiff, barring special circumstances.

3. Judgment on the defendant's defense

A. Unless there exist special circumstances, such as that the owner of a building agrees to remove the building when the owner of the building or the land belongs to the same owner but becomes different due to sale and purchase of the building or for any other reason, the owner of the building shall obtain a customary superficies for the building. In a case where the owner of the building who acquired the statutory superficies transfers the building without completing the registration of the establishment of the statutory superficies, barring special circumstances, the owner of the building shall be deemed to have a obligatory contract for the transfer of the superficies together with the building, and there is an agreement to remove the building, and the assertion of the existence of special circumstances, such as the existence of such an agreement, is

In addition, it is not permissible for a land owner to seek removal of buildings and delivery of land on the basis of ownership to the person who acquired legal superficies as above in light of the principle of trust and good faith.

(Supreme Court Decision 87Meu279 delivered on September 27, 1988, etc.). B.

However, in full view of the evidence Nos. 1 through 4, No. 1, 2, 8, and 9, the following facts are revealed.