1. The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Defendant.

Purport of claim and appeal

1...

1. The reasoning of the court of first instance’s explanation concerning this case is as follows, except for adding the following judgments to the new argument of the defendant at the trial of the court of first instance, thereby citing it as it is in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

2. Additional matters to be determined;

A. As to the claim on legal superficies under customary law, the owner of the instant land and the instant building on the ground of the Defendant’s assertion was all the Defendant, and E was awarded a successful bid for the instant land and the instant building at the real estate auction procedure on January 11, 2007. As the Defendant, as the owner of the instant building at the time of the said successful bid, was entitled to possess the said part of the said land under customary law, with reference to the attached reference corresponding to the site of the instant building among the instant land, as the owner of the instant building at the time of the said successful bid, as well as the statutory superficies under the customary law on the land of this case, which falls under the “A” portion of the instant building and 315 square meters

(2) In a case where only one of the lands owned by the same person and the buildings constructed on the land owned by the same person become disposed of in the other and becomes different from the owners of the land and the buildings, statutory superficies under customary law shall be established. However, if it is reasonable to deem that the building owner entered into a land lease contract with the landowner for the purpose of owning the building, the statutory superficies under customary law shall be deemed to have been waived.

(3) The defendant acquired the land of this case on August 23, 1979 on the ground of sale and purchase of the land of this case, and the defendant newly constructed one unit of money and money on the above land of this case on around 1984, taking into account the following: Gap's 1, 8, 9, 12, 13, Eul's 3, 5, and 8 (including the number of branch numbers; hereinafter the same shall apply), the witness H and I's testimony and the whole purport of oral argument.