2. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

3. All costs of the lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

A. Since June 14, 1922, D, the father of the Defendant owned the instant land from June 14, 1922, and died on January 28, 1971, the Defendant inherited it. The Defendant completed registration of preservation of ownership in the name of the Defendant as to the instant land on August 13, 1994.

After that, on the instant land on July 25, 201, the registration of entry of the decision to commence compulsory auction based on the decision to commence compulsory auction by Changwon District Court Jinju Branch was completed on July 25, 201. On March 21, 2013, the Plaintiff completed the registration of transfer of ownership on March 28, 2013 by fully paying the proceeds of sale in the above compulsory auction procedure.

B. Around 1935, D newly built the instant building, and after D died, D acquired the ownership of the instant building on the ground of inheritance due to an agreement division.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1, Eul evidence 2-1 to 5, Eul evidence 1, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination on removal and request for extradition

A. According to the above facts, since the defendant owned the building of this case and occupied the land of this case owned by the plaintiff, barring special circumstances, the defendant is obligated to remove the building of this case and deliver the land of this case to the plaintiff.

B. As to this, the defendant asserted that the plaintiff's claim is unjustifiable since the legal superficies under customary law has been established on the land of this case.

Unless otherwise stipulated, the owner of a building shall acquire a statutory superficies for the ownership of the building against the landowner, in case where the land belonging to the same person and the building on the ground, which belongs to the owner, become different from the owner due to a compulsory auction.

(see, e.g., Supreme Court en banc Decision 2010Da52140, Oct. 18, 2012). In this case, according to the above fact of recognition, the land and buildings belonging to the Defendant were different from those owned by the owner due to a compulsory auction, and thus, the Defendant did so.