1. The defendant against the plaintiffs

A. Of the land size of 504.3 square meters in 1,000 square meters in 1,00, the attached appraisal maps are linked in sequence to 6,7,8,9,000 square meters.

1. Basic facts

A. On March 11, 2013, the Defendant: (a) purchased the portion on the ship (A) which connects Nonparty E with Nonparty E in sequence 6, 7, 8, 9, and 6 the indication of the attached sheet No. 1.7 square meters; (b) the same appraisal map No. 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, and 10 in sequence; and (c) owned the portion (B) which connects Nonparty E with the same appraisal map No. 49.4 square meters; (b) the same appraisal map No. 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, and 16 in sequence; and (c) completed the registration of ownership transfer on the land of this case No. 123.9 square meters; and (d) the same appraisal map No. 24,25,27, 28, 29,304 square meters; and (hereinafter referred to “the building No. 25”).

B. On March 12, 2013, the Defendant concluded a mortgage contract with Nonparty FF association of KRW 300,000,000 with the maximum debt amount, and completed the registration of establishment of a neighboring mortgage on the same day.

The Plaintiffs were awarded a successful bid for each share of Plaintiff B 2/3 and Plaintiff A 1/3 on June 28, 2016 from the voluntary auction procedure (this Court G).

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1 and 2, the result of this court's commission of surveying and appraisal to the net 000 branch offices of the Korea Land Information Corporation, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination

A. According to the above facts of recognition as to the removal and delivery of the instant building, the Defendant, as the owner of the instant building, interferes with the Plaintiff’s exercise of ownership on the instant land. Therefore, barring any special circumstance, the Plaintiff is obligated to remove the said building and deliver the said land to the Plaintiff.

In this regard, the defendant asserts that there exists legal superficies under customary law for the building of this case. According to the facts acknowledged earlier, the defendant only possesses the right to dispose of the unregistered building of this case, and did not acquire the ownership of the unregistered building of this case (see Supreme Court Decisions 2006Da49000, Oct. 27, 2006; 2006Da4900, Apr. 24, 1998); and the defendant made the unregistered building of this case from the non-party E.