1. The plaintiff (Counterclaim defendant)'s appeal is dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Plaintiff (Counterclaim Defendant).

purport, purport, and.

1. The reasoning of the judgment of this court citing the judgment of the court of first instance is as stated in the part of the judgment of the court of first instance, except for the following “the second appeal part,” and thus, it is acceptable in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of the

2. Parts 3, 7, 3, 3, 4, 4, 4, 4, 4, 5, 5, 5, 5, 5, and 16, 16, and 18, 5, 5, 5, 5, 5, 5, 5, and 5, 5, 19, 5, and 18, 5, 19, 5, and 5, 5

On April 25, 1996, the part of Section 19 of Chapter 3, “The construction was commenced with permission, but it was completed before April 1996 after obtaining permission.”

Part 4 3 states "2518,510 won" as "2,518,510 won."

In the last part of the fifth part, “if a building was constructed on the ground by a landowner at the time the seizure of the land becomes effective, even if it did not reach the level that it can be seen as an independent building in light of social norms, the construction has been advanced to the extent that the size, type, and appearance of the building could be anticipated. In the latter part, if the purchaser paid the purchase price at the auction procedure, and if the building requirements are independent real estate, such as a minimum pole, roof, and main wall, until the purchaser paid the purchase price, the statutory superficies is established (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2010Da67159, Jan. 13, 2011).”

Part 6, "The building of this case was not in existence," and the building of this case was formed only in the basic steel pipeline construction works, and the size and type of the building has not been developed to the extent that it can be predicted to be external shape.

2. In conclusion, the judgment of the first instance is legitimate, and the defendant's appeal is dismissed.