1. The defendant removes the building indicated in the attached list 2 on the ground of the land listed in the attached list No. 1 to the plaintiff.

1. According to the overall purport of the statement and pleading by Gap's evidence Nos. 1 through 4 (including additional numbers) as to the cause of the claim, the plaintiff may recognize the fact that the plaintiff completed the registration of ownership transfer on August 24, 2015 as to the land indicated in the separate sheet No. 1 (hereinafter "the instant land") due to sale from May 18, 2015, and the defendant owns a building listed in the separate sheet No. 2 (hereinafter "the instant building") on the ground of the instant land.

According to the above facts, the defendant is obligated to remove the building of this case on the ground of the land of this case and deliver the land of this case to the plaintiff.

2. Judgment on the defendant's assertion

A. The Defendant asserted that the instant building was newly constructed with the consent of the owner B of the instant land from around 1950 and owned it without any special agreement on the removal of the building, and even if the instant land and the instant building were owned by another person due to changes in ownership, there was no special agreement on the removal of the said building. Therefore, the Defendant acquired statutory superficies as to the instant land under the customary law.

In addition, since the defendant as a superficiary has the right to claim the plaintiff to purchase the building of this case at a reasonable price, the plaintiff has the duty to purchase the building of this case, and also has the obligation to pay compensation to the defendant.

Even if not,

Even if the Plaintiff did not operate a regional housing association project and the auction procedure for the land of this case is underway, the Plaintiff’s claim of this case cannot be allowed as an abuse of rights, since it has no practical benefit in exercising the right to request land extradition and is in violation

B. The facts alleged by the Defendant alone cannot be deemed to have acquired legal superficies under customary law on the instant land.

In addition, there is no ground to regard the Defendant as the superficiary, and there is a duty to purchase the building of this case to the Plaintiff.