1. The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Defendant.

Purport of claim and appeal

1..

1. The reasons why the court is to use for this case is as stated in the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance, except for the addition of the judgment of the defendant in the court of first instance to the following paragraphs, thereby citing it as it is in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

2. Judgment on the defendant's argument at the trial court

A. The defendant's assertion that the building site and building should not be sold separately from multi-households, and the building of this case constructed on the land of this case is owned by the defendant together with the land and building.

Since only the land is transferred to the Plaintiff due to the public sale procedure, the building of this case is recognized as legal superficies under the customary law, it cannot comply with the Plaintiff’s request for removal.

B. Determination 1) After a site ownership has been established for the entire site of an aggregate building, the right to use the site cannot be disposed of separately from the section for exclusive use unless otherwise stipulated by the regulations (Article 20 of the Act on the Ownership and Management of Aggregate Buildings). The defendant's assertion that the building of this case is a multi-household building, and unless there is no proof as to the structure and status of the building of this case, its sectional ownership relationship, and its establishment of the site, etc., is without merit. 2) In addition, if one co-owner of land constructs a building with the consent of a majority of other co-owners and the owner of the land and the building differs, if the legal superficies under the customary law is considered to be established for the land, and if the owner of the land and the building differ, it would be unreasonable to allow one co-owner of the land to dispose of the property right for the share

(see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2011Da73038, Sept. 4, 2014). According to the foregoing legal doctrine, even if the Defendant’s assertion was returned to the instant case, the Defendant owned 33/7 of the instant land.