(b) A copy of a claim for removal of a building against a person who has acquired legal superficies under customary law for the possession of the building at the successful bid of the building;

B. In the absence of a special agreement by which Party A purchased the building from Party B to remove the septic tanks, which are part of the building laid underground in the neighboring building site of Party B, the said building should have been acquired, and it is reasonable to deem that Party C acquired the said building at a customary statutory superficies for the ownership of the said building, and that Party C transferred the legal superficies, which is a subordinate right, along with the building, by applying mutatis mutandis Article 100(2) of the Civil Act, barring any special circumstance, barring any special circumstance, the removal of the said septic tanks cannot be permitted under the principle of good faith to Party C, who may request Party B to register the creation of the superficies on behalf of

According to the reasoning of the judgment below, the court below acknowledged that the above purification tank was laid underground in the underground of 10.7 square meters ( Address 1 omitted) of Jeonjin-gu, Jeonju-si (hereinafter referred to as the "site in this case") owned by the plaintiff, and the above purification tank was installed as an incidental facility to the above ( Address 2 omitted) owned by the defendant adjacent to the site in this case and possessed by the defendant, and rejected the plaintiff's claim that the above purification tank is prohibited from using it under the premise that the above purification tank is owned by the plaintiff, on March 13, 1982, on the ground that the above purification tank was not owned by the plaintiff, and the plaintiff's claim for removal of the above purification facility as an abuse of rights under the above Article 6 was rejected on the ground that the above purification facility was constructed on the ground that the above purification facility was not owned by the plaintiff, which was owned by the plaintiff, on February 4, 1986. The court below rejected the plaintiff's claim that the above purification facility was not owned by the plaintiff.

However, according to Article 47 of the Enforcement Decree of the Building Act and Article 2 subparagraph 5 of the Act on the Treatment of Sewage, Excreta and Livestock Wastewater, a septic tank must be installed inevitably for the purification of sewage discharged from a hydrogen toilet, and according to the records, the septic tank in this case is installed in the underground of another adjacent lot, not the site of the above 3rd floor building, but it can be seen that the septic tank in this case is installed immediately adjacent to the above 3rd floor building for the disposal of sewage in the toilet for the above 3rd floor building, it should be viewed as an independent part of the above 3rd floor building rather than an accessory.

Therefore, in this case where the above non-party purchased the above 3rd floor building from the plaintiff and purchased the above 3rd floor building and did not peep into a special agreement to remove the above septic tank, it is reasonable to view that the above non-party acquired a customary statutory superficies for the possession of the above 3rd floor site, and thereafter, the defendant acquired the above building at a successful bid, and barring any special circumstances, it is reasonable to deem that the above building was transferred along with the building by analogy of Article 100 (2) of the Civil Act (see Supreme Court Decision 92Da527 delivered on July 14, 192). Thus, the removal of the above septic tank cannot be permitted under the principle of good faith to the defendant who can claim the registration of creation of superficies by subrogation of the above non-party (see Supreme Court Decisions 84Da1131,1132 delivered on April 9, 195; 91Da658 delivered on May 28, 191).

Therefore, without examining the remaining grounds of appeal, the judgment of the court below shall be reversed, and the case shall be remanded to the court below for a new trial and determination. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.

Justices Park Jong-ho (Presiding Justice)