The costs of appeal are assessed against the defendant.

1. As to the ground of appeal No. 1, if one of the co-owners owns a co-owned building on the co-owned land and only the share of the land is different owners due to sale and purchase, and the customary statutory superficies established for the ownership of a building on the land itself is deemed to have been established, if the customary statutory superficies established for the ownership of the building on the land itself, it would be unreasonable to allow one of the co-owners to dispose of the ownership of another co-owner's co-owner's co-owner's share, and in such a case, the customary statutory superficies cannot be established.

(See Supreme Court Decision 86Meu2188 delivered on June 23, 1987, etc.). Based on its stated reasoning, the lower court determined that, even if the Defendant, a co-owner of the instant land, acquired the Plaintiff’s ownership in the auction procedure for partition of co-owned property of the instant land while he owned the instant building, the Defendant could not claim legal superficies against the Plaintiff under customary law as to the instant land.

The judgment below

In light of the above legal principles and records, the judgment of the court below is just and acceptable, and there is no error in the misapprehension of legal principles as to legal superficies under customary law, contrary to the allegations in the grounds of appeal.

2. Examining the reasoning of the lower judgment in light of the relevant legal principles and records, the lower court is justifiable to have determined that the Plaintiff’s claim against the Defendant in this case against the good faith principle. In so doing, it did not err by misapprehending the legal principles as to the good faith principle.

3. Therefore, the appeal is dismissed. The costs of appeal are assessed against the losing party. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.