beta
Text
1. The defendant's appeal is dismissed.
2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Defendant.
Purport of claim and appeal
1..
Reasons
1. The reasoning of the court of the first instance’s explanation concerning the instant case is as follows: (a) the Defendant’s additional argument at the trial of the court of the first instance is the same as the part of the reasoning of the first instance judgment, in addition to the determination of “the additional determination at the trial of the second instance” as stated below; and (b) thus, it is acceptable in accordance with the main sentence of
2. Matters to be determined additionally in the trial;
A. The Defendant’s assertion that the instant building and land were owned by G, and the land was transferred to D and the owner of the building and land were changed, G acquired legal superficies under the customary law for the ownership of the instant building, and the Defendant can exercise legal superficies under the customary law recognized by G on behalf of the Plaintiff at the successful bid. Thus, the Plaintiff’s claim against the Defendant for removal of the instant building, delivery of land, and return of unjust enrichment against the Defendant is groundless.
B. The legal superficies under the customary law is established in the absence of special circumstances, such as that there was an agreement to remove the building when the land and the building belong to the same owner, but the owner becomes different for sale or other reasons. Examining the existence of the land and the building in this case in this case, according to the descriptions of Gap evidence Nos. 1, 5, Eul evidence Nos. 1, 2, and 2, the land in this case was registered under the name of H on August 12, 1981; the land in this case was registered under the name of H on June 23, 1995; the land in this case was registered for ownership transfer under the name of the plaintiff on July 28, 2014; the defendant recognized the ownership transfer registration under the name of the plaintiff on June 26, 207 as different from the land in this case’s list No. 23, 24, 25, 26, and 23 of the attached drawings on June 26, 2007.