The defendant removes the building indicated in the attached list to the plaintiff and delivers the land indicated in the attached list to the plaintiff.

1. The fact that the Plaintiff is the owner of the land listed in the separate sheet (hereinafter “instant land”) as to the cause of the claim, and the Defendant is the owner of the building listed in the separate sheet on the said land (hereinafter “instant building”) is no dispute between the parties.

Therefore, the Defendant is obligated to remove the instant building and deliver the instant land to the Plaintiff.

2. Judgment on the defendant's defense

A. As to the claim of statutory superficies under customary law, the Defendant’s view that all of the instant land and buildings were owned by the Defendant, but around February 28, 1940, donated the instant building to the Defendant’s set-off DozD, and sold the instant land to the Plaintiff’s set-off DozE. The instant building was owned by the Defendant’s inheritance, and the instant land was inherited by the Plaintiff’s set-off DozF, and thereafter owned by the Plaintiff. As such, the instant land and buildings were owned by the same person, and the ownership of the instant land and buildings were changed due to donation, sale, and so, statutory superficies under customary law is established.2) Comprehensively taking account of the overall purport of pleadings as to evidence No. 1 and No. 1-1 and No. 2 of evidence No. 1-2, it is recognized that C owned the instant land, but that C owned the instant building even the instant building.

There is no evidence to acknowledge that the above building was donated to D and that the defendant was inherited.

Therefore, the claim for the establishment of legal superficies under customary law, which is premised on the fact that land and its ground buildings belong to the same person's ownership, is groundless.

B. As to the assertion of abuse of rights, the Defendant, around 1941, was born and resided in the instant building and moved to another place in the last place. However, the Defendant, while the instant building is essential, did not have a plan to use the instant land. As such, the Defendant did not have a plan to use the instant land.