1. The defendant shall remove the building indicated in attached Table 2 to the plaintiff, and the land indicated in attached Table 1 to the plaintiff.

1. Facts of recognition;

A. On December 16, 2014, the Defendant purchased from Nonparty C the land listed in paragraph (1) of the attached Table No. 1 (hereinafter “instant land”) and the building listed in paragraph (2) of the attached Table No. 2 (hereinafter “instant building”), which is an unregistered building on that land, from Nonparty C, for KRW 80 million, and completed the registration of ownership transfer on the instant land on December 30, 2014.

B. On February 2, 2015, the Defendant completed the registration of creation of a mortgage on the instant land under the name of Nonparty D, the maximum debt amount of KRW 75 million, and the debtor’s establishment of a mortgage on the part of the debtor as the defendant.

(hereinafter “instant collateral security”). C.

In the voluntary auction procedure for the instant land, which was commenced as Changwon District Court Msan Branch E upon the application of D, the mortgagee of the instant case, the Plaintiff received the instant land and completed the registration of ownership transfer on May 13, 2016 after paying the price therefor on the same day.

[Reasons for Recognition] Unsatisfy, Gap evidence 1, 2, Eul evidence 1 and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. As to the cause of the claim

A. Since removal of a building constitutes a final disposition of ownership, in principle, the right to remove the building is vested in the owner (in principle, the title holder of the registration) only.

As an exception, the right to remove and dispose of a building, such as purchasing and possessing the building from the former owner, etc., within the scope of the right, has also the right to remove and dispose of the building in possession.

(2) In light of the above legal principles, the Plaintiff cannot be deemed to have actually occupied the building site, barring special circumstances, such as where the Plaintiff acquired the right to dispose of the building site by acquiring the unregistered building by transfer, and thus, the Plaintiff cannot be deemed to have actually occupied the building site, barring special circumstances such as where the transferee can be deemed to possess the building site, and even if the Plaintiff actually occupied the building site, the Plaintiff cannot be deemed to have occupied the building site.

Supreme Court Decision 200 delivered on November 13, 2003