If a part of the building is located on the site owned by another person due to a mistake in a replotting disposition, the nature of the legal superficies

Even though some of the buildings owned by the land was located on another's land due to the mistake of a replotting disposition, it cannot be said that the legal superficies for the ownership of a building on the land owned by the other's owner was established.

Article 214 of the Civil Act

Plaintiff

Defendant

Incheon District Court (83Gahap924)

1. The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal are assessed against the defendant.

(1) The defendant is found to have established (Ga), (Na), (Ma), (Ga), (Ga), (Ga), (Ga), (Ga), (Ga), (Ga), (Ga), and (Ga), and (Ga), (Ga), and (j) of 1 building size 72.14 square meters per unit, 22, 30, 31, 32, 32, 34 and 22 on board each of 5 stories, 50 square meters connected to the plaintiff, 400, 500, 500, 500, 500, 500, 500, 500, 500, 500, 500, 500, 500,000,000, 50,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,00,000) five,00,00

The costs of lawsuit shall be assessed against the defendant, and a declaration of provisional execution.

The original judgment shall be revoked.

The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

The court costs are assessed against all the plaintiff.

In the case of Incheon, Nam-gu (Standing Number 1 omitted), approximately 395.7 square meters (hereinafter referred to as the "the building site") is owned by the plaintiff. The fact that the defendant owns each building, such as the entry of the purport of the claim (hereinafter referred to as the "building") and fences on the ground is not a dispute between the parties, and the defendant is obligated to remove the above building and fences and deliver the building site, barring special circumstances.

Around April 1968, the defendant purchased 305 square meters prior to the Nam-gu Incheon Special Metropolitan City (Seoul Special Metropolitan City Number 2 omitted) from the non-party 1, and completed the registration of ownership transfer as to the above 305 square meters prior to the bond security group, which was the non-party 2 on March 15, 1972, and the above land was owned by the plaintiff at 478 square meters prior to the above 805-1 land register prior to the above 1969, and the replotting was decided on April 10, 1978. Even if the non-party 2 purchased the above land at the non-party 1, the non-party 3, which was the land lot number of the non-party 1, the non-party 2, who was the land site, and the non-party 1, who was the non-party 2, did not own the land at the non-party 1's own site and the non-party 2, who argued that there was no evidence that the land had been no ground for the non-party 1's construction.

In other words, the defendant leased the building site from the plaintiff on August 13, 1973 for the purpose of owning the building site without a fixed period. Since the plaintiff refused to terminate the above lease contract and request the renewal of the lease contract, it is alleged that the plaintiff filed a claim against the plaintiff to purchase the building site at the market price. Thus, on August 13, 1973, the plaintiff leased the building site without a fixed period and notified the defendant of the termination of the above lease contract on October 11, 1982. Although there is no dispute between the parties, the defendant did not assert that the building site was not leased from the plaintiff before acquiring the ownership of the building site, and the defendant did not assert that the building site was to be reconstructed or reconstructed by the agreement to not extend the lease contract and to not rebuild the above building site, and thus, it cannot be acknowledged that the plaintiff did not otherwise assert that the above building site was to be reconstructed or reconstructed by rebuilding the building site. Thus, there is no other reason to prove that there was no other reason to prove that the above right to purchase the building site was to be demolished or demolished.

Therefore, the defendant is obligated to remove the building and fence to the plaintiff and deliver the building site. Thus, the plaintiff's claim for objection is justified, and the judgment of the court below with the same conclusion is just and the defendant's appeal is without merit, and it is so decided as per Disposition by applying Articles 95 and 89 of the Civil Procedure Act to the burden of the costs of lawsuit.

Judges Lee Jong-young (Presiding Judge)