1. The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Defendant.

3. Paragraph (b) of the text of the judgment of the first instance.

1. The reasons for this Court’s acceptance of the judgment of the court of first instance are as follows: (a) the reasons for this case are the reasons for the judgment of the court of first instance except for the Defendant’s argument emphasized or added by the court of first instance pursuant to the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act

2. Additional determination

A. The summary of the Defendant’s assertion includes the arguments written in the preparatory documents submitted by the Defendant after the closing of argument.

1) Both the instant land and the building were owned by the same person. On December 19, 2006, C awarded a successful bid for the instant land in the voluntary auction procedure for the instant land, and the statutory superficies on the instant building was established pursuant to Article 366 of the Civil Act. The Defendant, who acquired the ownership of the instant building through auction, can oppose the Plaintiff, who acquired the ownership of the instant land from C via the sl&D Co., Ltd., with the statutory superficies established as above, and thus, cannot comply with the Plaintiff’s request (hereinafter “first assertion”).

(2) On March 10, 2005, B, who had built the above building and had originally acquired the building, sold the building of this case to I on March 10, 2005. In other words, I sold the building of this case to YAD on March 15, 2007. On the other hand, YAD purchased each of the above land from C, who owned 1 and 2 land, and completed the registration of ownership transfer on March 15, 2007, and therefore, the building of this case and the land of this case were owned by the same person. Accordingly, it should be deemed that all of the building of this case and the land of this case were owned by the same person. The plaintiff was awarded a voluntary auction procedure for the land of this case on May 19, 2008 (Seoul Central District Court J, and K) by winning the land in accordance with Article 366 of the Civil Act.

The defendant, who acquired the ownership of the building of this case through auction, can oppose the plaintiff with the legal superficies established as above.