1. The plaintiff's claims against the defendant and the succeeding intervenor are all dismissed.

2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

1. Although the Plaintiff sought removal of the building of this case against the Defendant, the Plaintiff is recognized as having obtained the owner of the building of this case on the ground of formal auction for liquidation on July 16, 2019 by the Defendant’s succeeding intervenor, even though there is no dispute between the parties, or comprehensively taking account of the overall purport of the pleadings in the evidence Nos. 1 through 5 and No. 5-7, the Plaintiff is deemed to have obtained the ownership of the building of this case on the ground of the instant auction for liquidation on July 16, 2019.

Thus, the defendant is no longer the owner of the building of this case, and the plaintiff's claim against the defendant is without merit.

2. Judgment on the claim against the intervenor succeeding to the defendant

A. The part of the cause of the claim is the owner of the land of this case, and the defendant succeeding intervenor is the owner of the building of this case. Thus, the defendant succeeding intervenor is obligated to remove the building of this case, barring any special circumstances to the plaintiff.

B. The Defendant’s succeeding intervenor asserts that the Defendant acquired customary statutory superficies against the instant land, and himself/herself, who acquired the instant building through auction, has the right to occupy the instant land on the ground of customary statutory superficies against the Plaintiff, the owner of the instant land.

In case where the owner is different from one another due to a compulsory auction or public auction under the National Tax Collection Act, etc., the owner of a building shall acquire a statutory superficies for the ownership of the building against the landowner unless otherwise stipulated that the owner shall remove the building.

Pursuant to these legal principles, comprehensively taking account of the overall purport of the pleadings in the statements Nos. 1, 3, and 5-7, the Defendant acquired each ownership of the instant land on June 2, 2003 and May 11, 2004, but acquired each ownership of the instant building on April 13, 2005.