1. The Defendants indicated in the attached Form No. 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, and 7 among the land size of 255 square meters in Go Chang-gun, Jeon Chang-gun, Jeon Chang-gun.

1. Facts of recognition;

A. On December 20, 2013, the Defendants purchased, in sequence, the 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, and 7 in the attached Form No. 7, 8, 10, 11, 14, 14, and 7 in the state of non-registration located on the land from the Goundong-gun, Gosi-gun (hereinafter “instant land”) and the 28.8 square meters in the part of the ship (b) above ground wooden land and the 15, 16, 17, 18, and 15 of the attached Form No. 15, in the order of priority among the items in the (c) part of the ship (hereinafter “instant building”).

B. The Defendants completed the registration of ownership transfer with respect to 1/2 shares of each of the instant land from E on January 13, 2014.

C. On April 20, 2017, the Plaintiff completed the registration procedure for transfer of ownership on the instant land due to voluntary auction.

The Defendants actually occupied the instant land while managing the instant building.

The building of this case is still unregistered as of the date of closing argument.

[Reasons for Recognition] Each entry of Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 4, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. According to the above facts finding as to the cause of the claim, unless there is any assertion as to the title that the Defendants may possess and use the building of this case, the Defendants are obliged to remove the building of this case and deliver the land of this case to the Plaintiff.

Accordingly, the Defendants asserted to the effect that the statutory superficies for the ownership of the instant building was established.

However, in a case where a person who acquired unregistered buildings together with the building site acquires the registration of ownership transfer only for the building site and the owner becomes different under the condition that the building site is not transferred, the legal superficies cannot be created (see Supreme Court Decision 91Da16730, Aug. 27, 1991). As seen earlier, the Defendants acquired the building of this case, which is an unregistered building, along with the land of this case, and thereafter, acquire it together with the land of this case.