1. The defendant, the defendant, on the part of the plaintiff, is a brick sloping roof 337 square meters above ground in Chungcheongnam-gun, Chungcheongnam-gun, Chungcheongnam-do, and a pipe.

1. Facts of recognition;

A. On January 4, 2012, the Defendant: (a) donated 337 square meters (hereinafter “instant land”) from Chungcheongnam-gun, Chungcheongnam-gun, Chungcheongnam-do; and (b) completed the registration of ownership transfer under the receipt No. 224 on January 7, 2013, the Daejeon District Court’s granting registry office.

B. On February 8, 2018, the Plaintiff purchased the instant land during the compulsory auction procedure conducted by this court E, and completed the registration of ownership transfer on February 12, 2018.

C. In the 1980s, the above D newly built a brick slve roof, a building not registered on the instant land, and installed a pipe, a non-a tent, and a stairs-use warehouse using a block structure, and the Defendant has the right to dispose of the said house, facility, and warehouse.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, entry of Gap 1 to 5 evidence, 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 above house, facility, and warehouse and deliver the pertinent land to the plaintiff.

3. The defendant's assertion asserts that D acquired legal superficies under customary law on the land of this case.

However, even according to the defendant's argument, in cases where not only D, the defendant, but also D, has legal superficies under the customary law on the land of this case, but also a person who acquired unregistered buildings with the same site, takes over the registration of ownership transfer only on the site of the building, and the owner becomes different under the condition that the building was not transferred, the transferee of the unregistered building is not entitled to dispose of the unregistered building, but also has the right to dispose of the unregistered building, and thus, it cannot be deemed that the building site and the building belong to the same person's ownership (see Supreme Court Decision 98Da4798, Apr. 24, 1998), no legal superficies can be created, or the defendant's assertion is acceptable.

4. The plaintiff's claim is justified.