1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

1. Basic facts

A. On July 6, 2010, the Plaintiff completed the registration of ownership transfer with respect to the real estate listed in the separate sheet (hereinafter “instant real estate”) and completed civil works and steel structure construction in order to construct a new building on the land above the instant real estate, the Plaintiff was successful on November 11, 2016 upon filing an application for voluntary auction with the Industrial Bank of Korea, which is a mortgagee.

B. At the time of the above voluntary auction, the part of the steel structure installed by the Plaintiff was excluded from the appraisal. After receiving the instant real estate from the appraisal, the Defendant demanded the Plaintiff to remove the steel structure installed on the ground, and was not collected by the Plaintiff, and was removed by itself and stored in the part of the instant real estate.

[Ground of Recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 9, Eul evidence No. 1 (including each number in the case of provisional evidence) and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The plaintiff's assertion and judgment

A. The steel structure established in the real estate of the Plaintiff’s assertion was owned by the Plaintiff, and the Defendant arbitrarily removed and damaged it, thereby causing damages equivalent to the price of the steel structure. Thus, the Defendant is liable to pay KRW 44,985,090 to the Plaintiff and damages for delay.

B. The fact that the Defendant removed the steel structure installed in the instant real estate is as seen earlier, but such fact alone cannot be said to have damaged the steel structure.

In addition, the defendant, who is the owner of the real estate of this case, has the right to seek the removal of the above steel structure from the plaintiff as the exercise of the right to claim the removal of interference based on the ownership. Since the plaintiff did not perform it at his discretion, the defendant extracted and stored the steel structure, and it cannot be viewed as illegal on this ground.

Therefore, the plaintiff's assertion is without merit.

3. The claim of this case is dismissed as it is without merit.