(a) remove each building listed in Attachment 2;

(b) Appendix 1.

A. Comprehensively taking account of Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 5 of the judgment as to the cause of the claim, the result of the appraisal commission to appraiser C of this court, and the purport of the entire pleadings, the plaintiff may recognize the fact that the plaintiff completely paid the sale price on June 12, 2018 with respect to the land listed in attached Table No. 1 (hereinafter “instant land”) owned by the defendant, each of the buildings listed in attached Table No. 2 of the instant land (hereinafter “each of the instant buildings”), the defendant’s father D (hereinafter “the deceased”), the construction of each of the instant buildings, the fact that the defendant currently has the authority to dispose of each of the instant buildings that were unregistered, and the fact that the monthly rent of the instant land from June 12, 2018 to May 24, 2019 constitutes 61,480.

According to the above facts, the Plaintiff acquired the ownership of the instant land on June 12, 2018, where the sale price was paid in full (Article 135 of the Civil Execution Act), and the Defendant is deemed to possess the instant land by having the authority to dispose of each of the instant buildings.

Therefore, barring special circumstances, the Defendant is obligated to remove each of the instant buildings to the Plaintiff, deliver the instant land, and pay unjust enrichment calculated by the ratio of KRW 61,480 per month from June 12, 2018 to the completion date of the delivery of the instant land.

B. 1) The Defendant’s assertion 1) The land and each building of this case were owned by the deceased, and the Defendant had owned the land and each building of this case from October 16, 2009 through the Defendant’s fault E after the deceased’s death. In such a situation, the Plaintiff acquired legal superficies under the customary law on each building of this case, as the Plaintiff was the owner of the land of this case. 2) According to the facts seen earlier, at the time of the Plaintiff’s acquisition of ownership of the land of this case, the Defendant had the right to dispose of each building of this case, the non-registered owner of which was the