1. The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

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

Purport of claim and appeal

1..

In full view of the evidence No. 1-1, evidence No. 2-1, evidence No. 2-2, evidence No. 3, evidence No. 3, the result of the verification by the court of first instance, and the purport of the entire pleadings by the court of first instance, evidence No. 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 32, and 12, among the land listed in the attached list No. 12-2, the defendant owned a building or concrete structure and interfered with the plaintiff's ownership of the above land as long as he/she did not have any legitimate title to the above part of the land. According to the above recognition facts, the defendant asserted that the above part of the land is removed and concrete.

On the other hand, the defendant asserts that the above building was unregistered for purchase price of KRW 3,00,00,000 from F on March 5, 2005, and that there is no difficulty in using the house after having been repaired in an amount equivalent to KRW 10,00,000. Thus, the defendant's claim of this case seeking the removal of the house is unjustifiable. Thus, the defendant's claim of this case is preferred for exercising the right to purchase ground property, and the tenant can exercise the right to purchase ground property against the lessor who purchased the unregistered building from the previous tenant on the lease of land for the purpose of owning the building (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2013Da48364, 48371, Nov. 28, 2013). However, where the land lease contract was terminated due to the lessee's default, the defendant cannot exercise the right to purchase ground property under the pretext of rent from 203Da68271, Apr. 22, 2003).