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 reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance cited in the instant case is that the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance is stated, except where the defendant added the following judgments as to the assertion added by the court of first instance. Thus, it is acceptable to accept it as it is in accordance with the main sentence of

2. As to the Defendant’s assertion, the Defendant asserts that the Defendant cannot respond to the Plaintiff’s claim on the ground of customary statutory superficies, since the right to collateral security is not established on the instant land at the time of March 3, 2010 on which the Defendant purchased the instant building.

In order to establish legal superficies under customary law, land and buildings should belong to the ownership of the same person at the time either land or building is disposed of.

[See Supreme Court Decision 95Da9075,9082 delivered on July 28, 1995, etc.] In full view of the entries and arguments in subparagraphs 1 and 2 above, the owner of the instant land before February 26, 2010 that the Defendant purchased the instant building was Plaintiff A and F, and the owner of the instant building was D. Thus, the Defendant did not own the instant land and the instant building at the time of purchasing the instant building through the auction procedure, and thus, the Defendant cannot acquire legal superficies under customary law.

Therefore, the defendant's above assertion is not accepted.

3. In conclusion, the decision of the first instance court is legitimate, and the defendant's appeal is dismissed as it is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.