1. The Defendants jointly share the Plaintiff’s 1,702 square meters of land 1,702 square meters above Do, Jeon Chang-gun, Jeon Chang-gun.

1. Facts of recognition;

A. On December 4, 2014, the Plaintiff completed the registration of transfer of ownership in the name of the Plaintiff on the ground of public sale on November 7, 2014 with respect to 1,702 square meters (hereinafter “instant land”).

B. The Defendants owned approximately 64.8 square meters on the ground of the instant land (hereinafter “instant building”) of a manager of light-weight steel structure, steel-frame structure, steel-frame roof, and one-story.

[Ground of recognition as to Defendant B] Articles 208(3)2 and 150(3)(a) of the Civil Procedure Act [based on recognition as to Defendant C] The fact that there is no dispute as to whether there is a ground for recognition as to Defendant C], each entry and video of subparagraphs A1 through 6 (including each number), and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. According to the above facts of determination as to the cause of the claim, the Defendants owned the instant building on the ground of the instant land owned by the Plaintiff and interfere with the Plaintiff’s exercise of ownership as to the instant land. Thus, the Defendants jointly have a duty to remove the instant building and deliver the instant land to the Plaintiff.

3. Determination as to Defendant C’s assertion

A. Defendant C’s assertion obtained permission on the operation of the fish farm on the ground of the instant land, and newly constructed the instant building to manage the fish farm. Even if the instant land was transferred to the Plaintiff due to public sale, statutory superficies and lien under the customary law on the instant building are established, and thus, the Plaintiff’s claim of this case is unreasonable.

B. First, we examine whether statutory superficies under the customary law on the instant building is established.

In order to establish legal superficies under the customary law on the instant building, the land and the building in this case should belong to the same person. There is no evidence to acknowledge that the Plaintiff owned the instant land and the building in this case at the time of the Plaintiff’s acquisition of ownership on the instant land by public sale, and rather, the purport of the entire pleadings in the statement of evidence No. 5.