1. Revocation of the first instance judgment.

2. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

3. All costs of the lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

1. Basic facts

A. Before subdivision, Pyeongtaek-si and E (hereinafter “the land before subdivision”) owned F. On September 3, 1998, the Defendant entered into a sales contract with F to ten square meters of the land before subdivision (hereinafter “instant sales contract”) and paid KRW 10 million of the purchase price on the same day.

However, the registration of subdivision and transfer of ownership have not yet been completed until now.

B. The Plaintiff purchased the land before subdivision from F on July 10, 200 and completed the registration of ownership transfer on September 5, 200.

The land before subdivision was divided into the instant land, etc. on August 29, 2016, following several subdivisions.

C. At the time of the instant sales contract, it was only cement packaging, and there was no building.

Since then, the defendant constructed a temporary building for warehouse (hereinafter referred to as "the provisional building of this case") in the part caused by a disaster.

Part of the instant building was constructed on the land adjacent to the instant land, Pyeongtaek-si G (Road).

(C) The instant sales contract’s section was in the state of ditches from the date of the instant sales contract to the date, which caused the occurrence of a disaster, and that part was packed as asphalt.

The defendant is occupying and using the damaged part, which is the site and packing of the building of this case.

[Reasons for Recognition] Unsatisfy, Gap evidence Nos. 1, 2, 8, 9, Eul evidence Nos. 1, 3, 4, and 6, Eul evidence or video, the result of the survey and appraisal in the first instance court, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The parties' assertion

A. Plaintiff 1) The Defendant, without any title, owned the instant building from among the instant land owned by the Plaintiff, and occupied and used the part that caused the occurrence of the instant building. As such, the Defendant is obligated to remove the instant building and deliver the part that caused the occurrence of the instant building to the Plaintiff and deliver the part that caused the occurrence of the instant building to the Plaintiff. 2) Since the instant sales contract is not a party F, the Defendant cannot assert the validity of the instant sales contract to the Plaintiff.

Even if the sales contract of this case is effective against the plaintiff.