토지인도
1. The Defendant removed the Plaintiff’s greenhouse above the 1,127 square meters above the Seocho-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government, and the said land.
1. The Defendant owned 6/8 shares of the 1,127 square meters prior to Seocho-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government (hereinafter “instant land”) and planted trees on the ground, and occupied the instant land by installing a vinyl house on the attached Form Nos. (a) and (b) (b) (b) of the instant land. On April 2, 2015, the Plaintiff received a successful bid for the said Defendant’s share in the public sale procedure and paid the price and acquired ownership.
[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, entry of Gap 1 and 2 evidence, purport of the whole pleadings
2. According to the above facts of determination as to the cause of the claim, the plaintiff is entitled to exercise the right to claim the exclusion of interference with ownership as co-owners of the land of this case, so the defendant is obligated to remove the above ground objects on the land of this case and deliver the above land to the plaintiff, unless it proves the right to possess the land of this case.
3. The defendant's argument as to the defendant's assertion, around 2006, established a vinyl house on the land of this case. The above vinyl house is an independent building separate from the land of this case as a pipe tent, and thus, its owner was different from the land of this case due to auction, and thus, it constitutes a statutory superficies under customary law.
However, in order to establish a statutory superficies under customary law, a building on the ground is independent real estate, such as a minimum pole, roof, and main wall (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2003Da29043, Feb. 13, 2004). The evidence submitted by the defendant alone cannot be deemed as an independent building, and the defendant's assertion is without merit.
The defendant alleged that the trees planted on the land of this case were not in conformity with the land of this case since the defendant publicly announced the ownership through the name of the person, but the plaintiff sought removal.