1. Revocation of a judgment of the first instance;

2. The Defendant is the Plaintiff (Appointed Party), the Appointed E, and D, with the 278 square meters Gyeong-dong, Chungcheongnam-gun, Chungcheongnam-do.

1. Basic facts

A. On July 9, 1981, the Defendant completed the registration of ownership transfer under the name of the Defendant with respect to the land of this case (hereinafter “instant land”).

B. On April 17, 1991, the Defendant entered into a mortgage agreement with a maximum debt amount of KRW 15,000,000 with a loan from a small-scale agricultural cooperative (hereinafter “large-scale agricultural cooperative”), and made a registration of establishment of a neighboring mortgage in the name of the small-scale agricultural cooperative (hereinafter “registration of establishment of a neighboring mortgage”) on the instant land on the following day.

C. After that, the Defendant newly constructed a building listed in attached Table 1 on the ground of the instant land.

On October 7, 2011, the Plaintiff (Appointed Party; hereinafter referred to as the “Plaintiff”) and the Appointed D, E (hereinafter referred to as the “Plaintiff, etc.”) purchased the instant land in the procedure for compulsory auction by Jinwon District Court Jinwon District Court on October 7, 201 (hereinafter referred to as the “instant auction”). The Plaintiff completed the registration of transfer of ownership as to the 2/40 shares among them, as to the 19/40 shares, as to the Selection D, and E, as to the 19/40 shares, by the Changwon District Court’s subordinate office of the Changwon District Court on December 6, 201.

[Ground of recognition] Unsatisfy, entry of Gap evidence 1, purport of whole pleadings

2. Determination

A. According to the facts acknowledged prior to the determination of the cause of the claim, the Defendant, the owner of the instant building, is obligated to remove the instant building to the Plaintiff, etc., who is the owner of the instant land.

B. The defendant's defense was originally owned by the defendant, but since the land and building in this case were sold to the plaintiff et al. by the above auction, the owner of the land and building became different, it is the defense that the legal superficies was acquired.

However, the legal superficies under Article 366 of the Civil Code is recognized only when there is a building on the land which is the object of the mortgage from the time when the mortgage was created, and the mortgager has established a mortgage on the land which is not a building.