1. The Defendant shall, in order to the Plaintiff, each point of the attached Table 1 to 12, and 1, among the land size of 469 square meters in Sinyeong-si.

1. Basic facts

A. On May 26, 2017, the Plaintiff completed the registration of ownership transfer based on the donation made on May 22, 2017 in the name of the Plaintiff, as to the 469 square meters (hereinafter “instant land”).

B. The Defendant owns a house on the ground of 107 square meters in the attached Form 1 through 12, and a toilet with 15 square meters in sequence, which connects each point of (i) part of (ii) the land of this case with the land of this case, and the attached appraisal map of the attached Form 13 through 16, and 13 with each point of (ii) the attached Table 13 through 16, and 13 (hereinafter collectively referred to as the “instant building,” and the land part on which the instant building is located, are located.

C. The instant building is unregistered.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1-1 and 2, each entry, the result of this court's request for surveying and appraisal to the President of the Daegu Gyeong-Gyeong District Office of Korea National Land Information Corporation, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination

A. As the judgment on the cause of the claim occupies the part occupied by the Defendant while owning the instant building constructed on the instant land owned by the Plaintiff, the Defendant is obligated to remove the instant building and deliver the part occupied by the Defendant to the Plaintiff.

B. The Defendant asserts that, since the Plaintiff’s former owner leased the instant land for the purpose of owning the instant building, the Defendant claimed that the Plaintiff purchase the instant building.

However, even if the Defendant leased the instant land from the Plaintiff’s former owner for the purpose of owning the instant building, the land lease, the purpose of which is to own the instant building, cannot be asserted the validity of the lease to a third party unless the building is registered (see Supreme Court Decision 96Da14517, Jun. 14, 1996). The fact that the Defendant did not register the instant building, as seen earlier, is the fact that the Defendant did not register the instant building. Accordingly, the Defendant cannot oppose the Plaintiff, who received the donation of the instant land after concluding the lease contract, as so alleged.

3...