1. The Defendant is a wooden house, warehouse, and container building on the ground of 469 square meters in the voice-gun of Chungcheongbuk-gun, the Plaintiff.

1. Basic facts

A. On May 30, 200, the Plaintiff is the owner who acquired the land located in the Sound Group C and D, and the Defendant owns a wooden house, warehouse, and container building in the land located in C (hereinafter “instant land”). The above wooden house and warehouse are recorded in the register as they were constructed on the ground located in D’s land.

B. The Defendant was the owner of the instant land from April 1995 to December 10, 1998, and the above wooden houses and warehouses were newly built prior to that.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 4, 6, purport of the whole pleadings

2. The assertion and judgment

A. The summary of the Plaintiff’s assertion is that there is statutory superficies on the instant land to the Defendant.

Even if the duration of superficies was terminated, the Defendant did not pay rent to the Plaintiff for 17 years.

Therefore, the Defendant is obligated to remove the wooden houses, etc. on the ground of the instant land to the Plaintiff, deliver the land, and pay the land rent of KRW 36,176,850.

B. In the case of superficies for the possession of a wooden building for which the duration of judgment is not agreed, the period is fifteen years pursuant to Articles 281(1) and 208(1)2 of the Civil Act, and it is reasonable to view that the statutory superficies had already been extinguished due to the lapse of that period, even if the statutory superficies existed to the Defendant.

Therefore, the Defendant is obligated to remove the wooden house, warehouse, and container building on the ground of the instant land and deliver the said land to the Plaintiff.

Meanwhile, while the Plaintiff sought a return of unjust enrichment equivalent to the land rent of this case against the Defendant, there is no evidence to prove that the amount exceeds 600,000 won recognized by the Defendant. As such, the Defendant is obviously from May 30, 2017 to the date following the delivery of the copy of the complaint of this case to the Defendant.