beta
Text
1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.
2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.
Reasons
1. Basic facts
A. The Defendant completed the registration of ownership transfer on the ground of sale and purchase on June 30, 201, with respect to the area of 420 square meters prior to C, 582 square meters prior to D, and 182 square meters prior to E (hereinafter “each of the instant lands”), and thereafter, on February 2014, the Plaintiff acquired ownership by fully paying the price at the auction procedure for each of the instant lands.
B. Meanwhile, on each of the instant lands, there are buildings of 124.8 square meters on the instant land, which are a block structure, string roof 124.8 square meters on the instant land (hereinafter “instant building”), and separate parts seeking removal by the Plaintiff, i.e., specific block structure, g roof 19.4 square meters on a single-story house, and 38.2 square meters on the board board roof, which are linked to the instant building. The Defendant completed the registration of ownership transfer on August 21, 2013 on the instant building on the ground of sale.
[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 4, Eul evidence Nos. 1 and 1 (including numbers; hereinafter the same shall apply), the purport of the whole pleadings
2. According to the claim of this case, the plaintiff filed a claim for removal of the building of this case owned by the defendant without title on each of the lands of this case, delivery of each of the lands of this case, return of unjust enrichment, etc., and the defendant asserted that the plaintiff's claim should be dismissed since the plaintiff acquired a customary statutory superficies on each of the lands of this case. Accordingly, according to the evidence and facts of recognition mentioned above, the plaintiff acquired ownership only for each of the lands of this case and the buildings of this case, and eventually the defendant acquired a customary statutory superficies on each of the lands of this case on or around February 2014, and eventually the plaintiff acquired ownership only for each of the lands of this case. Thus, the plaintiff's claim of this case is without merit.
The part of the claim for restitution of unjust enrichment also recognizes the monthly rent of the plaintiff's assertion.