beta
Text
1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.
2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.
Reasons
1. On September 19, 2012, the Plaintiff asserted that: (a) purchased a building on B, 57 square meters (hereinafter “instant land”) and its ground before permanent residence from C on a permanent basis; (b) the Plaintiff became the permitting authority of the said building.
D paid the sale price for the instant land in the G Daegu District Court E Voluntary Auction Procedure on February 13, 2015, and acquired its ownership. The Defendant completed the registration of creation of superficies on the instant land in the purport of the claim (hereinafter “registration of creation of superficies”) on February 13, 2015 without the Plaintiff’s consent, who is the statutory superficies (the Plaintiff, in the preparatory document as of April 3, 2017, arranged as the assertion of statutory superficies under the customary law) under the customary law.
Therefore, the registration of creation of superficies of this case is null and void since it is completed without the consent of the plaintiff, who is the legal superficies under the customary law.
2. In a case where a person who has acquired unregistered buildings together with the building site acquires the registration of ownership transfer only for the building site and the owner becomes different because the building site is sold by auction under the condition that the registration is not transferred, the legal superficies cannot be created;
(2) In light of the overall purport of the pleadings, the Plaintiff appears to have completed the registration of transfer of ownership of the instant land from C on September 19, 2012 on the ground of sale and purchase on August 9, 2012, in full view of the overall purport of the pleadings in each video as indicated in the evidence Nos. 16730, Aug. 27, 1991 (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 91Da16730, Aug. 27, 201). However, considering the overall purport of the pleadings in each video as indicated in the evidence No. 2-1 to 8, the Plaintiff appears to have been in the form and structure capable of deeming that the said building was an independent building under ordinary social norms at the time of purchasing the instant land and the purport of the entire pleadings in the statement No. 1, the Plaintiff