1. As to the Plaintiff’s share of 1/2, the Defendant indicated the attached sheet No. 1, 2, 3, among the 846 square meters in Chungcheongnam-gun, Chungcheongnam-gun, Chungcheongnam-gun.

1. In full view of the reasoning of the argument as to the cause of the claim Gap evidence Nos. 11 and Eul evidence Nos. 5, and the result of the commission of appraisal and fact-finding with respect to the branch offices of the Korea Land Information Corporation in Thai-gun, Chungcheongnam-gun, Chungcheongnam-do, and the purport of the entire pleadings, the plaintiff is the owner of the land of 846m2 (hereinafter “the land of this case”). The defendant is the owner of the land of 1/2 shares among the buildings of reinforced concrete building D, 169m2 and its ground reinforced concrete structure, 2,3,4,5,6, and 1m2 among the land of this case (hereinafter “the building of this case”). The purification records connected to the building of this case (hereinafter “the purification records of this case”) connected to the building of this case can be acknowledged that the land of this case is buried underground in the land of 1m2 connected each of the land of this case in order to indicate the attached appraisal No. 1, 2, 3, 4, 5,6, and 1.

According to the above facts, the defendant, the owner of the 1/2 share of the instant building, is obligated to remove the entire purification tank of this case to the plaintiff, the owner of the instant miscellaneous land, within the scope of the defendant's share in the instant building.

(2) The court below held that the defendant purchased the building of this case, but did not purchase the building of this case, and installed separate septic tanks after the purchase of the building of this case, and thus, the defendant did not own the building of this case or occupy the miscellaneous land of this case. However, the purification tank constitutes the constituent part of the building (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 93Da42399, Dec. 10, 1993). The defendant acquired the ownership of the septic tank of this case, which is the constituent part of the building of this case, by purchasing the building of this case and completing the registration of transfer of ownership, and the owner of the building of this case shall be deemed to possess the site of the building. Thus, the defendant's above assertion is without merit.

2. The defendant's defense is determined by the judgment of the court below. The whole owner of the building of this case was completed on January 1, 1996.