1. The plaintiff (Counterclaim defendant)'s main claim is dismissed.

2. The costs of lawsuit shall be all filed by adding a principal lawsuit and a counterclaim;

1. Basic facts

A. The Plaintiff newly constructed the instant case building, which is an aggregate building of 2 underground and 15 floors above ground, on the Gangnam-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government ground, and completed registration of initial ownership on April 17, 2006.

Since then, 10-13 floors (Nos. 1001, 1101, 1201, and 1301) of the instant building were transferred to C on October 5, 2010 through Enononono-Design Co., Ltd.

B. On September 7, 2010, the Plaintiff: (a) set up a collateral of the maximum debt amount of KRW 39 billion with respect to the remaining portion of the instant building except the maximum debt amount of KRW 10-13, which was owned by C; (b) on November 6, 2012, based on the said collateral security, the auction procedure for real estate was commenced as Seoul Central District Court D; and (c) on March 19, 2015, Defendant Hodong-dong purchased each of the said buildings at the said auction procedure.

Since then, Defendant SMC purchased the above 10-13th floor from C and completed the registration of ownership transfer on February 19, 2016. On February 26, 2016, it concluded a trust agreement with Defendant Asia on the entire building of this case and completed the registration of ownership transfer on February 29, 2016.

【Fact-finding without dispute over the ground for recognition, Gap evidence 2 and 3 (including branch numbers, if any; hereinafter the same shall apply), the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The allegations and judgment of the parties

A. The argument by the parties and the key issue are that the part of the 16th floor of this case was extended by the plaintiff and used for exhibition halls, etc., and is a structurally and functional building separate from the building of this case. The plaintiff acquired legal superficies for the continuation of the construction as the owner of the 16th floor of this case. Thus, the plaintiff's possession was deprived of the plaintiff's possession and sought delivery of it against the defendants who occupied it.

As to this, the Defendants asserted that the 16th floor part of this case cannot be regarded as an independent building as a part of the rooftop of the building of this case, on the other hand, and the 16th floor of this case is preliminary.