A landowner's claim for removal of a building against a person who acquires a building from a person who acquires a customary statutory superficies, and a good faith principle;

Since there was no special agreement for the original owner who owned the land and a building to remove the building constructed on the ground when he sells the land, the original owner of the building acquired the statutory superficies under customary law for the building, and it is apparent that the transferee of the building is at the location where he/she can file a claim for the registration of the establishment of statutory superficies with the transferee who purchased the building on behalf of the original owner when he/she is transferred the building from the original owner. Therefore, the land transferee is not allowed to claim the removal of the building to the transferee of the building in good faith.

Articles 2 and 366 of the Civil Act

[Plaintiff-Appellant] Plaintiff 1 and 1 other (Law Firm Han-sung, Attorneys Park Jae-young and 203 others, Counsel for plaintiff-appellant-appellant-appellant-appellant-appellant-Appellee)

Plaintiff

Attorney O Young-young, Counsel for defendant-appellant

Seoul Civil District Court Decision 91Na2808 delivered on May 24, 1991

The appeal is dismissed.

The costs of appeal are assessed against the plaintiff.

We examine the Plaintiff’s ground of appeal.

According to the facts duly established by the court below, the non-party 1, who was the owner of the land in this case and the building in this case, did not have any special agreement to remove the part of the building in this case constructed over the ground when he sells a square of 130 meters of the land in this case to the plaintiff. Thus, the above non-party 1 acquired the legal superficies under customary law for the part of the building in this case. When the defendant is transferred the above building from the above non-party 1, it is clear that the above legal superficies is also transferred to the plaintiff by subrogation of the above non-party 1 and the above non-party 1 can claim the registration of the establishment of legal superficies. Thus, the plaintiff's claim for removal of the part

The judgment of the court below that held to the above purport is just (if there is a clerical error in the part of ordinary checks, but the conclusion does not affect the conclusion), and there is no error in the misapprehension of legal principles as to legal superficies under customary law, such as the theory of lawsuit, and each case is not an appropriate precedent in this case

Therefore, the appeal is dismissed and the costs of appeal are assessed against the losing party. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.

Justices Song Man-man (Presiding Justice)