1. The Defendant (Counterclaim Plaintiff) against the Plaintiff (Counterclaim Defendant)

(a) remove the buildings listed in Attachment 1;

(b) annex.

A principal lawsuit and a counterclaim shall be deemed simultaneously.

1. Facts of recognition;

A. On October 1, 1998, the Defendant completed the registration of initial ownership on the buildings listed in paragraph (1) of the attached Table No. 1 on the ground of the instant land (hereinafter “instant building”) under the receipt No. 48963, Oct. 1, 1998, Suwon District Court, Sungnam Branch Office, Sung-nam Branch Office, Sung-nam Branch Office, 1998.

B. On February 22, 2016, the Plaintiff acquired the instant land through a public sale, and completed the registration of ownership transfer under the receipt of No. 10657 on April 1, 2016, by the Suwon District Court Branch of Sung-nam Branch of Seoul District Court.

[Reasons for Recognition] Evidence No. 1, Evidence No. 2, and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination

A. As to the removal of the building and the delivery of land by social norms, the building site cannot exist regardless of the site, so the land which became the site for the building shall be deemed to be possessed by the owner of the building. Therefore, as long as there is no legitimate title to occupy the land of this case, the Defendant occupied the land of this case and obstructed the Plaintiff’s exercise of ownership, the Defendant is obligated to remove the building of this case and deliver the land of this case to the Plaintiff. (2) (A) The Defendant’s assertion that the lease contract was concluded between the Defendant and C, the former owner of the land of this case, and the Defendant concluded the lease contract for the purpose of owning the building of this case (the detailed developments for the conclusion of the lease contract are as shown in the attached Form).

A) However, even in a case where the land lease aimed at the ownership of a building is not registered, if the lessee registers the building on the ground, the lessee has an opposing power against the third party (Article 622(1) of the Civil Act). If so, the Defendant may also assert the validity of the land lease agreement against the Plaintiff. Therefore, the Defendant has a legitimate title to occupy the land of this case, and thus, the claim for the removal of the building and the delivery of the land is without merit (Article 62(2) of the Civil Act).