1. The defendant

(a) remove the buildings listed in Annex 2;

(b) the land listed in Annex 1.

1. Comprehensively taking account of the purport of the entire pleadings in the evidence Nos. 1 and 2 as to the cause of the claim, the Plaintiff may recognize the fact that the Plaintiff was constructed on the ground of part (a) part (a) of the building listed in the separate sheet No. 1 as indicated in the separate sheet No. 1 for sale on May 27, 2014 and completed the registration of ownership transfer on June 3, 2014 on the ground of sale on May 27, 2014. The Defendant determined the highest price for the real estate compulsory sale procedure conducted as indicated in the separate sheet No. 2 (hereinafter “instant building”) to the court C, and paid all proceeds, and completed the registration of ownership transfer on March 21, 2017. The instant building is based on the facts indicated in the separate sheet No. 1, 2, 3, 3, 4, 5, 7, and 148 square meters (hereinafter “instant land”).

According to the above facts, the defendant owned the building of this case and occupied the land of this case, which is the site of the building of this case, and thereby interfered with the plaintiff's exercise of ownership as to the land of this case. Thus, the defendant is obligated to remove the building of this case and deliver the land of this case to the plaintiff, barring special circumstances.

(A) The Plaintiff sought delivery of all the land indicated in Paragraph (1) of the Attached List, but there is no evidence to deem that the Defendant possessed all the land indicated in Paragraph (1) of the Attached List beyond the instant land, and the Plaintiff also owned the land of this case among the land indicated in Paragraph (1) of the Attached List).

In customary legal superficies, when land and its ground buildings owned by the same person are different from each other due to sale and purchase, or other legitimate causes.