1. The Plaintiff, (1) Defendant C is each of the following points: (2) 10-27, and 10 indicated in the attached drawing among the forest E-gu Incheon Jung-gu 218,371 square meters.

1. Determination on both arguments

가. 원고가 현재 이 사건 토지의 공유자 중 1 인인데(☞ 원고의 공유지 분 : 5,365,758.7/7,152,875 지분), 피고들이 오래 전부터 현재까지 줄곧 이 사건 건물을 공동으로 점유 ㆍ 사용하고 있는 사실은 당사자 사이에 다툼이 없고, 을 4의 일부 기재와 이 법원의 감정인 F에 대한 임료 감정 촉탁결과에 변론 전체의 취지를 더하면, 피고 C가 이 사건 건물의 전소유 자로부터 이 사건 건물을 매수한 사실, 이 사건 토지의 2009. 12. 2. ~2019. 12. 1. 경까지의 통산 차임 액이 합계 37,678,800원이고, 2020. 8. 경을 전후하여 이 사건 토지의 월 차임 액이 253,890원인 사실을 인정할 수 있다.

B. According to these factual relations, barring any special circumstance, the Plaintiff, one of the co-owners of the instant land; (1) Defendant C removed the instant building; and (2) Defendants jointly deliver the pertinent joint land occupied by the State Section 1; and (2) there is no evidence to regard Defendant B and D as “persons in a position to legally and practically dispose of the instant building,” and thus, the part of the Plaintiff’s claim for removal of each building against the said Defendants cannot be accepted.

The reasons why the defendants' arguments cannot be accepted are as follows.

(1) The Defendants first asserted that “the superficies was acquired by prescription,” but there was no evidence to acknowledge that the use of each part of the above land by the Defendants was objectively indicated “the possession as a superficies person”. Thus, the Defendants acquired the superficies as to each part of the above land by prescription.

shall not be deemed to exist.

(2) The Defendants followed, on the premise that “(on the basis of the premise that the relationship of use lending continues to exist, the Plaintiff shall maintain the relationship).”