1. The defendant removes the building indicated in the attached Table 2 list on the land listed in the attached Table 1 list to the plaintiff, and the above land is above.

1. The Plaintiff’s judgment on the cause of claim (hereinafter “instant land”) completed the registration of ownership transfer on August 24, 2015 for the land indicated in the separate sheet Nos. 1 (hereinafter “instant land”) on May 18, 2015 due to sale and purchase as of May 18, 2015; and the Defendant’s ownership of a building listed in the separate sheet Nos. 1 and 2 on the instant land (hereinafter “instant building”) on the ground that there is no dispute between the parties, or is recognized in accordance with the purport of each description of the evidence No.

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. A. Around 1950, the Defendant, at the time of the instant land, acquired the consent to use the instant land from B, thereby building the instant building and removing it for sale or any other reason without a special agreement to purchase and sell the building. Thus, there was no special agreement to remove the building between the parties, even if the building belongs to another person due to changes in ownership of the instant land and building. Therefore, the Defendant acquired statutory superficies as to the instant land under the customary law.

In addition, the plaintiff is obligated to purchase the building of this case at a reasonable price.

In addition, the plaintiff did not implement the regional housing association project within the land of this case, and in particular, there is no benefit in receiving the land of this case due to the decision on commencing auction of this case, and rather objectively violates social order. Thus, the plaintiff's claim cannot be allowed as abuse of rights.

B. The reasoning of the judgment by the Defendant alone does not allow the establishment of legal superficies under the customary law on the instant land, and therefore cannot be deemed to have the obligation to purchase the instant building to the Plaintiff, and the Plaintiff’s claim in this case is an abuse of rights.