1. The parties to the lawsuit in the defendant and the deceased shall be the plaintiff:

(a) Attached appraisal among the lands listed in paragraph 1 of the attached list.

1. Facts of recognition;

A. The Plaintiff completed the registration of ownership transfer on October 27, 2015 due to the sale of each land listed in the separate sheet (hereinafter “each land of this case”) on October 27, 2014.

B. The Defendants and B were the husband of Defendant E, and the deceased F, the father of Defendant C and D, the father of Defendant C and D, as the disposition No. 1

(a).

Each unregistered building mentioned in paragraph (1) (hereinafter “each building of this case”) has been jointly owned and has been residing in the building.

C. B died on October 26, 2018 while the instant lawsuit was pending, and the Defendants took over B’ legal proceedings.

[Reasons for Recognition] Unsatisfy, Gap evidence Nos. 1-1, 1-2, Eul evidence No. 1, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. According to the facts of the above recognition, the defendant and the deceased B's party to the lawsuit (hereinafter "the defendant") occupy each of the instant land by jointly owning each of the instant buildings on each of the instant land.

Therefore, the plaintiff seeking the removal of interference based on ownership shall leave each of the buildings of this case, remove each of the above buildings, and deliver each of the above land to the plaintiff.

In this regard, the Defendants asserted to the effect that they cannot respond to the Plaintiff’s claim because legal superficies under customary law on each land of this case was established.

In principle, when the owners of both land and a building belong to the same owner but become different due to the sale, etc. of a building or land only, the owner of the building acquires legal superficies under the customary law for the building except in cases where there is an agreement to remove the building (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 98Da58467, Dec. 10, 199). The evidence submitted by the Defendants alone is insufficient to recognize the fact that each of the instant building and each of the instant land on which each of the instant buildings was located was owned by the same person at the time of sale due to voluntary auction, and rather, it is difficult