1. The defendant remove the building indicated in the attached list to the plaintiff.

2. The costs of the lawsuit are assessed against the defendant.

3...

1. On the ground that the plaintiff, the owner of the building listed in the separate sheet as the aggregate building (hereinafter "the sectional ownership building of this case"), does not have the right to use the site for the sectional ownership building of this case, the defendant sought removal of the sectional ownership building of this case as the owner of the land. The defendant asserts that the lawsuit of this case was brought for the purpose of reducing psychological pressure to the defendant without the plaintiff's intention to actually remove the sectional ownership of this case, and there is no benefit to the protection of rights, and that the removal and execution of the sectional ownership building of this case is impossible or considerably difficult because the plaintiff cannot receive the title to execute the removal of the whole apartment as stated in the separate sheet, and the lawsuit of this case should be dismissed as there is no benefit to the lawsuit of this case.

However, there is no ground to deem that the Plaintiff filed the instant lawsuit solely with the intent to remove the building under the partitioned ownership of this case without any intention to actually remove the building under the divided ownership of this case, and even if it is practically impossible to remove the building under the divided ownership of this case, it is merely a hindrance to the commencement of enforcement, and thus, there is no interest in the lawsuit seeking removal.

(See Supreme Court Decision 2010Da15158 Decided September 8, 2011). Therefore, the Defendant’s prior defense on the merits is without merit.

2. As to the cause of the claim, it is acknowledged that the entry of the grounds for the claim in the separate sheet Nos. 1 through 7 (including the number of each branch number), comprehensively taking account of the overall purport of the pleadings, and according to this, the defendant has only ownership of the sectional ownership of the building in this case and does not own the right to use the site of this case. Thus, the defendant who owns the building in this case on the land in this case, exercises the right to claim the removal of interference based on the ownership of the land in this case