1. The Defendant indicated in the attached Form No. 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 11 among the land size 202 square meters of Gangwon-gun C Forest land in Gangwon-gun.

1. Basic facts

A. On March 11, 1989, the Plaintiff completed the registration of ownership transfer as to the portion of 12,562/16,066 out of 202 square meters of Gangwon-gun C forest land (hereinafter “instant land”). On June 22, 2011, the Plaintiff completed each of the remaining shares of 3,504/16,06 out of the instant land.

B. On January 14, 2011, the Defendant completed the registration of ownership transfer with respect to the instant building located on the ground of cement block block block block block block block block block block block block block block block block block block block block block block block block block units (hereinafter “instant building”). For reference, the location of the instant building on the real estate registration on the real estate register is “Gangwon Sung-gun D,” and the details of the instant building are “Cement 64.8 square meters,” which are “64.8 square meters,” which are connected in order to each point of the (c) section of the attached drawings among the instant land in this case.

[Ground of recognition] The facts without dispute, Gap evidence 6-8, Gap evidence 6-12, Gap evidence 6-12, the result of this court's entrustment of appraisal to the Youngbuk-dong Vice Governor of the Korea Land Information Corporation, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. According to the above facts of determination as to the cause of the claim, the defendant is obligated to remove the building of this case and deliver the part of the land of this case to the plaintiff, as it interferes with the plaintiff's exercise of ownership as to the part (c) land by owning the building of this case on the ground of the part (c).

(3) The defendant's defense is asserted to the effect that "the plaintiff cannot respond to the plaintiff's claim since he/she acquired legal superficies under the customary law for the ownership of the building of this case on the land of this case," since he/she received the claim for exclusion of interference based on ownership. Thus, the claim for exclusion of interference based on ownership is not determined on the termination of the lease contract related to the selective claim."

However, in order to establish legal superficies under customary law, land and buildings were owned by the same person, but the owners were changed due to sale and other causes.