1. The defendant removes the building indicated in the attached list No. 2 to the plaintiff, and the land indicated in paragraph 1 of the same list.

1. Comprehensively taking account of the purport of the entire pleadings in the evidence Nos. 2 and 4 as to the cause of the claim, the Plaintiff is obligated to remove the instant building and deliver the instant land to the Plaintiff, the owner of the instant land, except under special circumstances, since the Defendant, as the owner of the instant housing, occupies the instant land by owning the instant land, in accordance with the above recognition facts, since the Plaintiff was determined as the highest bidder and paid all sales proceeds after receiving a decision of permission for sale, and completed the registration of ownership transfer as the receipt of No. 27100 on December 19, 2017, as to the instant land listed in the separate list No. 2 (hereinafter “instant housing”).

2. Judgment on the defendant's defense

A. The defendant asserts that there exists a legitimate title to occupy the land of this case.

However, comprehensively taking account of the overall purport of the arguments in Gap evidence Nos. 2 and 4, since the land of this case and the housing of this case did not belong to the same person, there is no room to establish legal superficies or statutory superficies under the Civil Act, and otherwise, the defendant acquired a real right to legitimately occupy the land of this case.

There is no evidence to prove that London concluded a contract with the Plaintiff for the purpose of using the instant land, such as a lease or loan agreement for use.

Therefore, the defendant's above assertion cannot be accepted.

B. The defendant's claim of this case constitutes abuse of rights.