1. The defendant shall be the plaintiff.

A. The delivery of 677 square meters, D 53 square meters, and E 73 square meters, each, in the Haan-gun, Haan-gun, Gyeongnam-do.

1. Basic facts

A. On April 8, 1987, the Defendant acquired the ownership of C, 677 square meters in Hagu-gun, Hagu-gun, Hagu-gun, Chungcheongnam-do, D, April 9, 1987, the ownership of 53 square meters in D, 53 square meters in D, November 2, 1989, the entire land of E, E, 73 square meters in 73 square meters in 1989 (hereinafter referred to as “each land of this case,” and when a part of the land is referred to as “the land of this case”), respectively, the Defendant acquired the ownership

B. After that, on April 3, 2009, the Plaintiff acquired the ownership of each of the instant land by winning a successful bid in the auction procedure for real estate rent (Seoul District Court F).

[Grounds for recognition] Gap evidence No. 1-3 and the purport of the whole pleading

2. Summary of the parties' arguments

A. Although the Plaintiff asserted on April 3, 2009 acquired the instant land on April 3, 2009, the Defendant occupied and used each of the instant land while owning buildings and camping materials on each of the instant land.

Therefore, the Defendant is obligated to remove and remove the buildings and the camping materials existing on each of the instant land to the Plaintiff, deliver each of the instant land to the Plaintiff, and return unjust enrichment from the use of each of the instant land by the completion date of delivery of the land.

B. The Defendant’s assertion D or E’s camping materials existing on the land do not mean that the Defendant did not fit, and the Defendant only occupies and uses C’s land within the scope of using C’s land building (hereinafter “instant building”).

However, after acquiring C’s land ownership on April 8, 1987, the Defendant newly constructed the instant building and owned C’s land and the instant building on March 5, 191, and only C’s land was awarded to the Plaintiff during the voluntary auction procedure on April 3, 2009 due to the enforcement of the right to collateral security established against C’s land on March 5, 1991. Accordingly, C’s land and the building owner were changed.

Therefore, the defendant acquired legal superficies for land C in accordance with Article 366 of the Civil Code.

3. Determination

A. Whether the defendant's legal superficies against land C is established or not, the legal superficies under Article 366 of the Civil Act of 1 related legal principles is established at the time of establishing a mortgage.