1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

The Plaintiff, the owner of the instant land, asserted that the Defendant occupied the instant land by constructing and occupying the instant building on the instant land, and sought removal of the instant building and delivery of the instant land against the Defendant.

Since a building cannot exist regardless of its site under social norms, the land which became the site for the building shall be deemed to be possessed by the owner of the building, and in such cases, even if the owner of the building does not actually occupy the building or the site thereof, it shall be deemed that he/she occupies the site for the purpose of owning the building.

(see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2002Da57935, Nov. 13, 2003). Also, the removal of a building constitutes a fact that constitutes a final disposition of ownership. Thus, in principle, the owner is entitled to remove the building only.

I would like to say.

(See Supreme Court Decision 2002Da61521 delivered on January 24, 2003, etc.). In light of the above legal principles, we examine whether the Defendant owns the instant building, and there is no evidence to acknowledge it.

(2) The building owner of the instant building is not the owner of the instant building, even if the building actually occupies the instant building, so long as the Defendant is not the owner of the instant building, it cannot be deemed that the Defendant occupied the instant land, and it cannot be deemed that the Defendant could not demand the removal of the instant building against the Defendant who did not have the right to remove the building. Therefore, the Plaintiff’s assertion is difficult to accept.

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim of this case is dismissed as it is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.