2015 Ghana74387 Land Assignment, etc.

Sda Development Construction Co., Ltd.

A

September 8, 2016

September 22, 2016

The defendant removes the buildings listed in the attached Table 2 list on the ground of the land listed in the attached Table 1 list to the plaintiff, and deliver the above land.

2. The costs of the lawsuit are assessed against the defendant.

3. Paragraph 1 can be provisionally executed.

The same shall apply to the order.

1. Determination as to the cause of claim

According to the overall purport of Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 4 (including paper numbers), the plaintiff completed the registration of ownership transfer on August 24, 2015 for the land listed in the separate sheet Nos. 1 (hereinafter referred to as "land of this case") on May 18, 2015 due to the sale by himself/herself on May 18, 2015, and the defendant holds a building listed in the separate sheet Nos. 2 on the ground of the land of this case (hereinafter referred to as "building of this case").

According to the above facts, the defendant is obligated to remove the building of this case on the ground of the land of this case and deliver the land of this case to the plaintiff.

2. Judgment on the defendant's assertion

A. The defendant's assertion

In around 1950, the Defendant newly constructed the instant building with the consent of use from B, which was the owner of the instant land, and owned it without any special agreement on the removal of the building, and even if the instant land and the building were owned by another person due to changes in ownership, there was no special agreement on the removal of the said building. Therefore, the Defendant acquired statutory superficies under common law on the instant land.

In addition, since the defendant as a superficiary has the right to claim the plaintiff to purchase the building of this case at a reasonable price, the plaintiff has the duty to purchase the building of this case, and also has the obligation to pay compensation to the defendant.

Even if it is not so, the plaintiff's claim of this case is not permissible as abuse of rights, since the plaintiff did not operate the regional housing association project and the auction procedure for the land of this case is in progress, and there is no practical benefit in exercising the right to request the transfer of land and it

B. Determination

The circumstance alleged by the Defendant alone does not mean that the Defendant acquired legal superficies under customary law on the instant land. Moreover, since there is no ground to regard the Defendant as the superficies, it cannot be deemed that the Plaintiff had the obligation to purchase the instant building, and there is no ground to view that the Plaintiff bears the obligation to pay compensation to the Defendant. The Plaintiff’s claim in this case cannot be deemed as abuse of rights. All of the Defendant’s assertion

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim of this case shall be accepted for the reasons of its reasoning, and it is decided as per Disposition.

Judge Oral Records

A person shall be appointed.

A person shall be appointed.