beta
Text
1. The Defendants remove the buildings listed in the attached Form 2 on the ground of the land listed in the attached Form 1 to the Plaintiffs, and set forth in the attached Form 1.
Reasons
1. As to the land listed in attached Form 1 (hereinafter “instant land”), the Plaintiff Co., Ltd.: (a) was subject to sale as of May 18, 2015; (b) the Plaintiff Co., Ltd. completed the registration of ownership transfer for each 1/2 share on August 24, 2015 due to the sale by compulsory auction as of August 17, 2015; (c) the Defendants owned a building listed in attached Form 2 (hereinafter “instant building”) on the instant land, without any dispute between the parties; or (d) it is recognized by the purport of the entire pleadings and all pleadings.
According to the above facts, the defendants are 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 plaintiffs.
2. Judgment on the defendants' assertion
A. The summary of the defendants' assertion (1) around 1950, the defendants acquired the approval of use of the land of this case from F, who was the owner of the land of this case at the time of the construction of the building of this case and owned the building of this case by different owners for sale and purchase without any special agreement to remove the building. Thus, there was no special agreement between the parties to remove the building even when the building belongs to another person due to changes in ownership of the land of this case and the building of this case. Thus, the defendants acquired legal superficies under the customary law on the land
(2) The Plaintiffs are obligated to purchase the instant building at a reasonable price from the Defendants and pay compensation to the Defendants.
(3) The plaintiffs did not undertake the project of the regional housing association with respect to the land of this case, and in particular, even if the land of this case was delivered from the defendants due to the decision on commencing auction of the land of this case, there is no benefit and there is no objective objective violation of social order. Thus, the plaintiffs' claims cannot be allowed as abuse of rights.
B. The Defendants are determined.