1. The appeal is dismissed.

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

Purport of claim and appeal

Claim: the defendant.

1. The reasoning of the judgment of this court citing the judgment of the court of first instance is as stated in the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance, except for adding the following judgments pursuant to Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

2. (1) The defendant asserts that the plaintiff's claim for removal of the building of this case is unjustifiable, since only a part of the building of this case is on the land specified in attached list No. 3 (hereinafter "third land").

However, only a part of the building is another's land.

Therefore, the owner of the building does not have the right to possess the part of the land (the plaintiff is seeking to remove only the part of the third land among the building owned by the defendant). The defendant's above assertion is without merit.

(2) Next, before September 1, 2005, the Defendant acquired the right to collateral security on the third land, constructed the instant building which was not yet completed registration of ownership preservation as it was without permission, and the Plaintiff acquired the ownership of the third land from the voluntary auction based on the aforesaid right to collateral security.

Even if the defendant acquired legal superficies as stipulated in Article 366 of the Civil Act for the building of this case, the defendant raises a defense to the effect that he acquired legal superficies.

However, according to the images of evidence No. 4-1 (Aeronautic. 4-1), it is recognized that no building exists in the land No. 3 from the date of establishment of the above collateral security right until June 2006, and there is no other evidence to reverse the above recognition and to acknowledge the defendant's defense. Even according to the defendant's assertion, even if the building of this case was built by the defendant, and the owner of the land and the building are different, the above defense of the defendant is without merit.

3. In conclusion, the plaintiff's claim of this case shall be accepted on the grounds of all of its reasoning, and the judgment of the court of first instance is just in conclusion, and the defendant's appeal is dismissed, and it is so decided as per Disposition.