1. The Defendant removed a temporary building on the land of 62 square meters in Yongcheon-si, Youngcheon-si, C, and deliver the said land to the Plaintiff.

2...

1. Facts of recognition;

A. On March 15, 2016, the Plaintiff purchased and acquired a 62m2 square meters in Yong-si, Yong-si (hereinafter “instant land”).

B. The Defendant occupied a building, such as a sanction, house, warehouse, etc., that is, the owner of a building of 506 square meters adjacent to the instant land in Yongcheon-si adjacent to the instant land. Of them, some of the buildings upon which part of the buildings invaded the entire land of this case.

(See Attached Form). [See Attached Form] Fact that there is no dispute, entry in Gap evidence 1 through 5, the result of the survey and appraisal by the Korea Land Information Corporation, the purport of the whole pleadings.

2. Determination:

A. According to the above facts, the defendant is obligated to remove the provisional building on the ground and deliver the land to the plaintiff, who is the owner of the land of this case, unless there is a special reason not to do so.

B. As to this, the Defendant purchased the above adjoining land and building (including the part on the ground of this case) from E and succeeded to the possession of E, and the acquisition by prescription for the land of this case was completed upon the lapse of 20 years from May 22, 1986 when the registration of ownership preservation was completed upon obtaining approval for use of the building, but the Plaintiff knowingly conspired with the former owner and purchased it to make it impossible to exercise the right to claim ownership transfer registration due to the completion of the acquisition by prescription, and therefore, the Defendant did not have any obligation to deliver it to the Plaintiff.

However, even if the acquisition by prescription for the possession of real estate has been completed, if the transfer registration for the ownership of the real estate has been completed with a third party with respect to the real estate without registration, the possessor cannot oppose the third party (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 97Da56495, Apr. 10, 198). There is no evidence to prove that the Plaintiff committed a tort in collusion with the former owner of the land in order to obstruct the exercise of the right by the defendant due to the completion of the acquisition by prescription.

Therefore, the defendant's defense cannot be accepted.

3. Conclusion