1. Pursuant to the addition of the purport of the claim by this court, the defendant succeeding transferee amounting to KRW 8,035,920 and the plaintiff.

1. The reasoning of the court's explanation concerning the instant case is to add the following judgments to the judgment of the court of first instance.

1. The facts of recognition

The latter part of the first instance judgment is the same as that of the first instance judgment, except that “Co-owners with respect to the remainder of 0.5/21.9 shares, other than the instant land shares, were F, and changed to G on August 27, 2009 and changed to the Plaintiff on August 21, 2018.” Therefore, it is acceptable in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

2. Determination on addition

A. The legal superficies under Article 366 of the Civil Act, which is determined as to the claim of legal superficies by the Defendant’s successor, is recognized in order to own a building in cases where land and a building owned by the same person belong to each other’s possession due to an auction by the exercise of a mortgage, and thus, if a purchaser of an unregistered building together with the building site has received the registration of ownership transfer only for the building site and the registration thereof has not been transferred. However, in cases where the building site was sold by auction due to the execution of the mortgage after the settlement of mortgage on the building site, and the building site became owned by another person at the time of the creation of the mortgage, there is no room to establish legal superficies because the building site and the

(2) On June 20, 2002, the Plaintiff acquired the share of the instant building and the instant land in an unregistered state. However, while the Plaintiff acquired the share of the instant building and the instant land in a unregistered state, the Plaintiff had completed the registration of ownership transfer only with respect to the share of the instant land, and the instant building did not have any registration with respect to the share of the instant land in an unregistered state, the Plaintiff’s share of the instant land was sold by auction due to the execution of the mortgage and the instant land became owned by the Plaintiff by means of the execution of the mortgage. Thus, there is no room for establishing legal superficies under the aforementioned legal doctrine.

Therefore, legal superficies are.