1. The defendant acquisition intervenor removed the buildings listed in the attached Table 1 to the plaintiff, and the land listed in the attached Table 2 to the plaintiff.

1. Basic facts

A. On June 2, 2014, the Plaintiff received a successful bid in the public auction procedure for the land listed in the attached Table 2 (hereinafter “instant land”) and pays the price, and completed the registration of ownership transfer on the 25th of the same month.

B. As to the building listed in the separate sheet 1 (hereinafter “instant building”), C, the husband of the Defendant (ex officio, hereinafter “the Defendant”), completed the instant building on May 201, and completed the registration of ownership preservation in the name of C on the instant land on December 19, 201, and C donated the instant building to the Defendant on December 29, 201, completed the registration of ownership transfer in the name of the Defendant on March 30, 201, and the Intervenor who acquired the instant building (hereinafter “the Intervenor”) completed the registration of ownership transfer in the name of the Defendant on March 28, 2016 after receiving a successful bid for the instant building during the public sale process and paying the price therefor, and completed the registration of ownership transfer on April 6, 2016.

[Ground of recognition] Unsatisfy, entry of Gap evidence 1 to 4, purport of whole pleadings

2. Determination

A. According to the above facts of determination as to the plaintiff's cause of claim, the intervenor, who is the owner of the building of this case, has a duty to remove the building of this case and deliver the land of this case to the plaintiff, unless there is a legitimate title to occupy and use the land of this case owned by the plaintiff.

B. On the summary of the Intervenor’s assertion, the Intervenor asserted that (1) the land and buildings of this case were owned by the same land and buildings as the Defendant’s husband, and the Defendant received the donation of this case and divided the ownership of the land and buildings. Since there was no special agreement to remove the building in the above donation process, the Defendant acquired statutory superficies on the land of this case for the purpose of owning the building of this case, and the Intervenor succeeded to it, the Plaintiff cannot seek removal of the building of this case and delivery of the land of this case against the Intervenor.

(2) The land and its ground which were owned by the same person.