1. The defendants remove the buildings listed in the attached Form 2 on the ground of the land listed in the attached Table 1 to the plaintiffs and the above land.

1. There is no dispute between the parties to the judgment as to the cause of the claim, or according to the overall purport of Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 4 (including branch numbers) and all visual and visual arguments, among the land listed in the attached Table No. 1 (hereinafter “instant land”), the Plaintiff Co., Ltd. on the ground of sale on May 18, 2015 with respect to shares No. 1/2; the Plaintiff Co., Ltd. on the ground of sale on May 18, 2015; the Plaintiff Co., Ltd completed the registration of ownership transfer on August 24, 2015 for the remaining 1/2 shares due to compulsory auction on the ground of sale on August 17, 2015; the Defendants owned and possessed the buildings listed in the attached Table No. 2 (hereinafter “instant building”).

According to the above facts, the defendants are obligated to remove the buildings of this case on the ground of the land of this case and deliver the land of this case to the plaintiffs unless there are special circumstances.

2. Judgment on the defendants' assertion

A. The Defendants asserted 1) around 1950, the Defendants constructed the instant building with the consent of use from E, which was the owner of the instant land at the time of the instant land. Despite the change of ownership on the instant land, there was no special agreement between each owner to remove the instant building. Therefore, the Defendants have the legal superficies under the customary law on the instant land, and further have the right to claim purchase of the instant building against the Plaintiffs as the holder of superficies. 2) While the Plaintiffs are carrying out business activities, such as ordering the implementation of the regional housing association business of the Seo-gu Busan and Seo-gu District Housing Association (including the instant land), the said business has not been implemented, and the auction procedure on the instant land has not been initiated, and there is no interest in the Defendants’ request for removal of the instant building and delivery of the land, and its purpose is to inflict damages on the Defendants, and it is objectively in violation of social order.