1. All appeals by the defendant against the plaintiffs are dismissed.

2. All costs of appeal shall be borne by the Defendant.

1. The reasoning for the court’s explanation of this case is as stated in the reasoning of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act, in addition to the application of Article 2(a) of the judgment of the court of first instance by the court of first instance as follows. As such, the reasoning for the court’s explanation of this case is the same as that of the judgment of the court of

According to the above facts, D, who owned each of the instant land and the instant building on its ground, acquired statutory superficies from 11 co-owners, including the Plaintiff, etc. who sold each of the instant land on November 22, 199 (Article 366 of the Civil Act). After that, the Plaintiffs, who became co-owners of each of the instant land, bear the restriction on the said statutory superficies. The Defendant, upon acquiring the ownership of the instant building through public sale on June 10, 2013, transferred the above statutory superficies to the Defendant without registration pursuant to Article 100(2) of the Civil Act by analogy (Article 187 of the Civil Act), which is the subordinate right to the instant building, without registration (Article 187 of the Civil Act), was inevitable, but it appears that the scope of the statutory superficies under Article 100(2) of the Building Act was to have been used for the original purpose of the building at the time of the public sale of the building, and its use of the instant land at the time of the first instance trial or the first instance judgment (Article 673).