1. The plaintiff's main claim is dismissed.

2. The defendant shall be the plaintiff.

(a) KRW 101,684,500 and the same shall apply thereto.

1. Basic facts

A. On December 17, 2002, the Defendant purchased the instant land and completed the registration of ownership transfer with respect to the instant land on December 31, 2002. On December 31, 2002, on December 31, 2002, the Defendant concluded a mortgage contract with Choung Bank Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “Mediation Bank”) with a maximum debt amount of KRW 1,300,000,000, the debtor, the Defendant, and the Defendant, the Defendant, and the Defendant, the mortgagee of the right to collateral security (hereinafter “mortgage”) and completed the registration of ownership transfer on the same day.

B. Since then, the Choung Bank applied for a voluntary auction on the instant land, and the auction procedure for real estate auction was conducted upon the voluntary decision on commencement of auction on October 19, 2004. On September 6, 2005, the Plaintiff received a successful bid on the instant land and paid the successful bid price, and completed the registration of ownership transfer on September 12, 2005.

C. Meanwhile, on May 15, 199, the Defendant obtained a building permit on the ground of the instant land, and constructed the instant building upon obtaining a design change permit on August 24, 2002, and had not been completed until now.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1, 3, Eul evidence 1, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Judgment as to the main claim

A. According to the above facts, barring any special circumstance, the Defendant, the occupant of the instant land, is obligated to remove the instant building, deliver the instant land to the Plaintiff, which is the owner of the instant land, and either return unjust enrichment regarding the occupation of the instant building or compensate for damages caused by tort among the instant land.

B. The defendant asserts that the plaintiff's claim of abuse of right as to the defendant's defense constitutes abuse of right and thus the plaintiff's claim cannot be allowed, even though the plaintiff did not propose consultation on the handling of the building of this case to the defendant and rejected the defendant's proposal.

The exercise of rights can be seen as abuse of rights.