1. Defendant (Appointed Party) B: The Plaintiff

(a) KRW 740,00 and for this, 5% per annum from February 7, 2017 to August 8, 2017.

Facts of recognition

Defendant B acquired the ownership of the instant land on December 23, 1966, and thereafter, the instant building was located on the said land.

The Appointor D leased the instant building from Defendant B, and has been occupying the said building on or around July 11, 2014 and has been living until now.

The Plaintiff completed the registration of ownership transfer of the instant land on April 7, 2016, following the public sale procedure.

(Reasons for Recognition) Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1, Eul evidence 1, each entry of Eul evidence 1, the result of the survey and appraisal conducted by appraiser E, the purport of the whole pleadings.

Judgment

As seen earlier, Defendant B owned the instant building on the instant land owned by the Plaintiff as to the removal and eviction claim.

However, in a case where the land and buildings belonging to the same person are different from the owners due to compulsory sale by official auction or public sale under the National Tax Collection Act, the owner of the building shall acquire the statutory superficies for the ownership of the building against the landowner (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2010Da52140, Oct. 18, 2012) unless otherwise stipulated that the building should be demolished (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2010Da52140, Oct. 18, 2012). As seen earlier, the land and buildings in this case were owned by Defendant B, and the owner was different due to the public sale, the Defendant

(A) The Plaintiff asserted that the Selection C is the owner of the instant building, but there is no evidence to acknowledge this). Therefore, Defendant B has a legitimate authority to occupy the instant land, so the Plaintiff cannot seek removal of the said building against the Defendant B, and the Selection D cannot seek removal from the said building.

Even as to the claim for restitution of unjust enrichment, legal superficies is paid to the land owner (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 96Da34665, Dec. 26, 1997). As such, the instant site is owned through the ownership of the instant building.