토지인도
1. The defendant shall remove the building on the ground indicated in the attached Form to the plaintiff, and the land indicated in the attached Form.
1. The Plaintiff’s judgment on the cause of the claim (hereinafter “instant land”) completed the registration of ownership transfer on August 24, 2015 for the land indicated in the attached Form (hereinafter “instant land”) on the ground of sale and purchase as of May 18, 2015, and the fact that the Defendant owns a building listed in the attached Form (hereinafter “instant building”) on the ground of the instant land does not conflict between the parties, or is recognized in accordance with the respective entries (including the serial number) in subparagraphs A through 4, and the purport of the entire pleadings.
According to the above facts, the defendant is obligated to remove the building of this case on the ground of the land of this case and deliver the land of this case to the plaintiff.
2. Judgment on the defendant's assertion
A. The summary of the defendant's assertion (1) around 1950, the defendant acquired the approval of use of the land of this case from B who was the owner at the time of the land of this case and constructed the building of this case and owned the building of this case differently for sale or other reasons without any special agreement to remove the building. Thus, there was no special agreement between the parties to remove the building even when the building belongs to another person due to changes in ownership of the land and the building of this case. Thus, the defendant acquired legal superficies under the common law on the land of this case
(2) The Plaintiff is obligated to purchase the instant building at a reasonable price from the Defendant and pay compensation to the Defendant.
(3) The Plaintiff did not undertake the project of the regional housing association with respect to the instant land, and in particular, even if the instant land was delivered from the Defendant due to the decision on commencing auction on the instant land, it may be deemed that there is no benefit, and rather objectively violates social order. Therefore, the Plaintiff’s claim may not be allowed as an abuse of rights.
B. The facts alleged by the Defendant alone cannot be deemed to have obtained legal superficies under customary law on the instant land, and the Plaintiff cannot be deemed to have obtained the legal superficies from the Defendant.