1. The defendant remove the building indicated in the attached list to the plaintiff.

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

3...

1. Facts of recognition;

A. The Plaintiff is a part of the Plaintiff’s right holder of Yeongdeungpo-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government B large 49,693m2 (hereinafter “instant site”).

B. On the ground of the instant land, apartment C, an aggregate building, was constructed, but the right to a site of the said land was not registered.

C. On March 7, 2012, the Defendant: (a) sold a separate unit of the instant building site and part of the apartment building on its ground, at the auction on March 7, 2012; (b) acquired the ownership of the said apartment at that time; (c) however, (d) the ownership share of the site was not acquired.

【Ground of recognition】 The fact that there has been no dispute, entry of Gap Nos. 2, 6, and 7, the purport of the whole pleading

2. With respect to the instant lawsuit against the Defendant seeking the removal of the instant apartment against the Defendant, the Defendant asserts that since some of the sectional owners of the said aggregate building acquired the right to a site from the Plaintiff, it is impossible for the Plaintiff to obtain the right to a site for the removal of the entire building, even if he/she received a favorable judgment against the Defendant, its execution is impossible. Accordingly, the Plaintiff’s lawsuit against the instant case is unlawful as there is no benefit of lawsuit.

However, even if there are circumstances in which the plaintiff cannot execute the removal obligation due to the reasons such as the defendant's assertion, it is merely a disability requirement for the commencement of enforcement, and it does not constitute a ground to dismiss the plaintiff's claim, and thus, it cannot be deemed that there is no benefit of lawsuit to seek it.

(Supreme Court Decision 2010Da15158 Decided September 8, 2011). Defendant’s defense prior to the merits is rejected.

3. Determination as to the cause of action

A. According to the above facts, the defendant can be aware that he owned the apartment of this case on the ground of the site without acquiring the right to use the site. Thus, barring any special circumstance, this case's apartment is owned.