The defendant removes the buildings listed in attached Form 2, and deliver the land listed in attached Form 1 to the plaintiff.

The defendant.

The Plaintiff is a co-owner of 2/11 of the land listed in attached Form 1 (hereinafter “instant land”), and there is a building listed in attached Form 2 (hereinafter “instant building”) on the ground of the said land, and at least 4/11 of the net D owns the de facto right to dispose of (the original acquisition is unclear).

As to this, the plaintiff asserts that the defendant owned the building of this case and possessed the land of this case without title, and the defendant owned the same land and building of this case, and some shares of this case were disposed of, so the legal superficies under customary law was established as to the building of this case.

However, the statutory superficies under customary law is recognized only to the owner of the building (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 87Meu634, Jul. 7, 1987); there is no evidence to acknowledge that the network D newly built the instant building and acquired its ownership; and the ownership of the unregistered building cannot be acquired solely by the owner who acquired it in an unregistered state (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2007Da11347, Jun. 15, 2007). Accordingly, the Defendant, the heir of the networkD, cannot be deemed to have acquired the co-ownership of the instant building; therefore, there is no room for the Defendant to recognize the statutory superficies under customary law.

Therefore, the Defendant is obligated to remove the instant building and deliver the instant land to the Plaintiff, and pay the money calculated by applying the ratio of KRW 23,840 per month to the amount of unjust enrichment equivalent to the rent that the Plaintiff acquired from December 11, 2018 to the date of complete payment (Evidence A6) with the share of co-ownership of the instant land (written appraisal on June 10, 2019).

(See Supreme Court Decision 2000Da13948 delivered on December 11, 2001, regarding the fact that the obligation of joint possessors to return unjust enrichment is indivisible, the Plaintiff may leave the building of this case to the Defendant.