1. The plaintiff's main claim is dismissed.

2. The part of the conjunctive claim in the instant lawsuit is dismissed.

3...

1. Basic facts

A. The plaintiff is the mother of D, and the defendant is the spouse of D.

B. On December 21, 2012, the Plaintiff purchased a large 265 square meters of land from the Korea Land and Housing Corporation in Sungnam-si (hereinafter “instant land”) and paid the purchase price in full, but did not complete the registration of ownership transfer with respect to the instant land.

C. The Defendant newly constructed and completed the building on the instant land (hereinafter “instant building”).

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1, 3, 4, Eul evidence 2, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Main claim;

A. The Defendant asserted that the Plaintiff had, without the Plaintiff’s consent, drafted at will the Plaintiff’s consent to the use of the site of this case with the Defendant as the person who consented to the use of the site of this case, and the Defendant as the user, and based on this, newly constructed the building on the instant land

Therefore, the Defendant, as a landowner, should remove the instant building and deliver the instant land to the Plaintiff seeking the exclusion of disturbance based on the ownership of the instant land.

Even if the Plaintiff’s ownership of the instant land is not recognized, the Korea Land and Housing Corporation approves the Plaintiff to use the land from September 30, 2015. Since the Plaintiff’s right to use the instant land is a real right, the Plaintiff is entitled to seek removal of the instant building and delivery of the land based on the right to use the instant land.

B. First of all, we examine whether the Plaintiff can seek removal of the instant building and delivery of the land based on the ownership of the instant land to the Defendant.

Article 213 of the Civil Act provides that "the owner may demand the person who possesses an article in his possession to return it, and Article 214 of the Civil Act provides that "the owner may demand the person who disturbs the ownership to remove the disturbance, and may interfere with the ownership."