beta
Text
1. Of the judgment of the first instance court, the part concerning the principal claim shall be modified as follows:
The Defendant-Counterclaim Plaintiff (Counterclaim).
Reasons
1. The court's explanation on this part of the basic facts is the same as the corresponding part of the judgment of the court of first instance (1. basic facts). Thus, this part is cited by the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.
2. Determination as to the claim on the principal lawsuit
A. Determination 1 as to the removal of the building and the claim for delivery of the land listed in [Attachment 1] Claim 1 List 1, the fact that the land listed in [Attachment 1 List 1] owned by the Plaintiffs, and the fact that the Defendant owned the instant building and occupied the said land does not conflict between the parties. Therefore, barring any special circumstance, the Defendant is obligated to remove the building listed in [Attachment 1 List 1] to the Plaintiffs and deliver the said land. 2) As the Defendant acquired the statutory superficies as to the land listed in [Attachment 1 List 1 List 1 List 1, the Defendant asserted that he/she has the right
In full view of the overall purport of the arguments as seen earlier, the instant building and the land before subdivision were originally owned by I, and became different owners by selling only the instant building to J on September 18, 2008, and completing the registration of ownership transfer, and the Defendant may recognize the fact that he acquired the ownership of the instant building on November 15, 2016. Thus, it is reasonable to view that J acquired the statutory superficies under customary law as to the said building within the extent necessary for the maintenance and use of the said building, and that the Defendant also acquired the statutory superficies under customary law, which is a subordinate right upon the successful bid of the instant building.
Therefore, the defendant is deemed to have acquired legal superficies on the land listed in the attached Table 1 List 1. Therefore, the defendant's above defense is justified.
Therefore, this part of the plaintiffs' claim is without merit.
The plaintiffs have a marital relationship between the above I and the J, and thus the owners of land and the building are different.