1. The Defendant shall draw up to the Plaintiff a 9.54 square meters attached to the housing of 19.54 square meters, which is a brick lub roof on the ground of 684 square meters in Jeju-si.

1. Basic facts

A. On July 9, 2012, the Plaintiff completed the registration of ownership transfer for the land indicated in the disposition (hereinafter “instant land”) based on a compulsory auction. The Defendant owned each of the buildings indicated in the disposition on the instant land (hereinafter “each of the instant buildings”) before the Plaintiff acquired the ownership of the instant land, and occupied the instant land based on statutory superficies when the Plaintiff owned each of the buildings indicated in the disposition on the ground of the instant land (hereinafter “each of the instant buildings”).

B. After acquiring the ownership of the instant land, the Plaintiff filed a lawsuit against the Defendant with the Jeju District Court for payment of the land rent (2012da22771), and on February 19, 2013, the Plaintiff was sentenced to the judgment that “the Defendant would pay to the Plaintiff the amount equivalent to KRW 256,50 per month from July 9, 2012 to the date on which the Defendant’s possession of the instant land is terminated or the Plaintiff loses its ownership,” and the said judgment became final and conclusive on March 12, 2013.

C. On July 9, 2012, to December 9, 2013, the Plaintiff paid only the land rent pursuant to the above judgment, and thereafter did not pay the land rent thereafter. On January 8, 2016, the Plaintiff filed a claim for the extinction of statutory superficies with the Defendant through the service of a duplicate of the instant complaint stating the declaration of intent to claim the extinguishment of the superficies on the ground of payment of the land rent for more than two years. On May 16, 2016, the Plaintiff notified D of the claim for the extinguishment of statutory superficies as above.

【Ground of recognition】 without dispute over the facts, Gap’s evidence 1-1, 2, Gap’s evidence 2-4, Gap’s evidence 6 and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. According to the above facts of recognition, the legal superficies on the land of this case by the defendant were extinguished on the ground that the legal superficies of this case was extinguished on the ground of not less than two years since it was notified D of the claim for extinguishment of the legal superficies of this case after a considerable period of time elapsed. Thus, the defendant removed each of the buildings of this case to the plaintiff and removed them.