1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

1. In addition to the purport of the entire pleadings in the statement on the evidence No. 1 of the basic facts, the Plaintiff is recognized to have acquired ownership by obtaining a successful bid at a compulsory auction of real estate in progress with respect to the real estate of 1,124 square meters (hereinafter “instant land”) prior to Seosan-si, Seosan-si (hereinafter “instant land”) on December 1, 2017.

2. The former owner of the instant land asserted by the Plaintiff was the Defendant. The latter owner of the instant land was the single-story house, vinyl house, and dog (hereinafter “each of the instant buildings”) stated in the purport of the claim were owned D. Since the Defendant did not have any title to the instant land, occupied each of the instant buildings until now and used them for profit, the Defendant is obligated to remove the instant building and deliver the occupied land to the Plaintiff.

3. The judgment of removal of a building is an act that constitutes a final disposition of ownership, and thus, in principle, the right to remove the building is vested in the owner (in principle, the title holder of the registration) only.

The decision is that (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2002Da61521, Jan. 24, 2003). Since a building cannot exist in general regardless of its site, the owner of the building can be deemed to possess the land, which is the site of the building (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2012Da72469, Jan. 25, 2017). Thus, barring any special circumstance, the plaintiff must seek removal of each building of this case and delivery of the relevant site against the owner of each building, and even according to the plaintiff's assertion, the owner of each building of this case is D. According to the evidence No. 2, according to the plaintiff's statement, the taxpayer was D in the tax ledger of the single-story house among each building of this case, and in light of these facts, the evidence submitted by the plaintiff alone owned each building of this case.

It is insufficient to recognize that the relevant site has been used and used.

Therefore, the plaintiff's argument is justified.