Defendant B’s appeal is dismissed.

All the judgment below is reversed and the case is remanded to Seoul High Court.

1. As to the appeal by Defendant B Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “Defendant Company”), the appeal by Defendant B (hereinafter “Defendant Company”) seeks revocation or alteration of the unfavorable judgment in favor of himself/herself, the appeal by the lower court against the entire winning judgment is not permissible as it has no benefit of filing the appeal.

(See Supreme Court Decision 91Da40696 delivered on March 27, 1992, etc.). According to the records, it is evident that the lower court dismissed the Plaintiff’s claim against the Defendant Company in its entirety. Thus, the appeal filed by the Defendant Company that won the entire winning case against the Plaintiff is unlawful as there is no benefit of appeal

2. Plaintiff’s ground of appeal

(a) In the absence of an agreement to remove a building when land or a building belongs to the same owner but the owner of the building becomes different due to sale and purchase of the building or for any other reason, the owner of the building shall acquire legal superficies under the customary law for the building. However, if there is a special agreement between the parties to remove the building and exercise full ownership that is not disturbed by the ground building, the legal superficies under the customary law shall not occur;

(See Supreme Court Decisions 87Meu279 delivered on September 27, 198, and 98Da58696 delivered on January 18, 200, etc.). In addition, in cases where there are differences in the interpretation of a contract between the parties and the parties concerned, the interpretation of the parties’ intent expressed in a disposition document is at issue, the parties’ intent as expressed in the disposition document should be reasonably interpreted in accordance with logical and empirical rules by comprehensively taking into account the content of the text, motive and circumstance of the agreement, the purpose to be achieved by the agreement, the parties

(See Supreme Court Decision 2004Da60065 Decided May 27, 2005, and Supreme Court Decision 2006Da15816 Decided September 20, 2007, etc.) B.

The judgment below

According to the reasoning and duly admitted evidence, the following facts are revealed.

(i).